I may be reading into things here, but I kinda feel like you're saying that only unstable kids are at real risk of suffering long-term damage from teen bullying? Which I don't agree with? Like, I can maaaaaybe agree that there's a majority of them who ARE troubled (and that goes for the bullies, too), but I think if anything, the bullying is what's CAUSING them to be troubled as opposed to just catalyzing their troubled tendencies? Again, it's possible that I'm misinterpreting what you said or projecting or something.
Like, all things considered, I'm a pretty well-adjusted person and former pretty-well-adjusted kid, but I still find myself suffering intense feelings of insecurity and self-consciousness in certain social/professional situations that I think stem from my experiences with junior high bullying in the late 90s, no less (of course we didn't call it "bullying" back then, just "school"), and then becoming a bit of a bully myself when I went to high school in a different state and grew boobs and a jaded, bitchy attitude (and we didn't call it a "bullying" then either, just "joking around"). And it may or may not have changed things if (I don't even remember what celebrity I liked back then - Julia Roberts?) someone famous told me to hang in there, that they had been there and "got it." But I don't know, I tend to be of the general opinion that that sort of thing does more good than harm.
I upvoted this ironically, but only because I read your comment as ironic. So does that mean my upvote was actually non-ironic? Oh boy. Lady brain makes ouchie in my tummy.
If you actually meant it, then ugh. Commencing a thousand eyeroll sequences.
Southernbitch, I have received your proposal, I have read it and I Love It. Yes. Proceed.
I wouldn't spent actual money on a subscription (sorry!) but it could be like that Gaga Stigmata blog, which blew me away when I first read it in 2010 (Full disclosure: I haven't visited it in a while so I can't attest to what's come of it since inception, but here, start at the beginning if you want or don't whatever: http://gagajournal.blogspot.com )
Are you a real academic, or like me, a recreational academic too lazy to go to grad school and do homework yuck? Kudos either way!
Tim, don't take this the wrong way, but... are you straight? Because if you are, your comment might go a long way toward making me really believe in the existence of the IRL Straight Male Feminist. I do have an admittedly unfair prejudice against straight men in this sense (I can't fully shake the belief that all of them are at least a tiny part sexist asshole deep down), so any counterexample helps! I want to believe!
A thousand times upvoted. Based on your two comments I've read, I feel like we should be friends. Just to make sure we'd be compatible, though, here are some things I think are gross: strip clubs, Chippendales, Applebee's.
It definitely means you're an asshole because only an asshole could love a movie about an asshole! This is because we are Ladies and we only love the things we identify with! Chocolate! Babies! Periods!
P.S. I loved Young Adult too! But fiction-wise, I just don't care about redemption as much as a good story.
No, it is real progress. It's just not all-the-way-there progress. Which is why we call it "progress" and not "mission accomplished." And personally, I love a good fictional female asshole. For now, it's still rare enough to be refreshing.
But I was going to say that perhaps the reason why that trend seems so popular to Gabe right now is because even in older fiction the Evil Lady archetype was the one who was actually closest to being a fully realized character whereas the Pure and Beautiful Girl just had things dropped into her lap a lot? Like the Evil Queen actually plotted and proactively sought out her goal of killing Snow White, whereas Snow White just sort of waited around to be kissed back to life or whatever.
So maybe this "trend" is just like one "step" in the "process"?
I didn't downvote you and I don't think you're wrong, per se, but I also don't think your analysis is comprehensive enough. You've done a good job of describing the ideal model for dealing with the adolescent and pre-adolescent bullying problem. Yes, it would be great if role models were available and found near the home. But even if everyone had awesome parents and older siblings and school administrators who would implement this model, there would still be kids slipping through the cracks for whom an offhand remark by a celebrity (pre-downfall, post-downfall, whatever; who cares where they'll be five years after some gay kid in Iowa has already appropriated their long-ago message of hope?) might make a huge hell of a difference. And this is only in the best case scenario, which our society is still very far from actually achieving.
And I don't think that these celebrity messages necessarily come across as "Look kids, you could be as cool and beautiful as I am in a few years!" but more like "Look kids, even someone as cool and beautiful as I am went through some tough times some years ago."
And I do disagree with you on one point - I believe many bullied teens DO believe they are all alone. Those pesky teen and pre-teen years are pretty much the most self-involved years of a person's entire life, so it makes sense to me that whatever experiences these kids share, good or bad alike, would be perceived as singular. And in the case of bullying, which tends to have a shaming effect, the victims themselves often take the matter into their own hands by doing their best to hide the problem from everyone in their life.
I understand what you're trying to say (in a very victim-blaming kind of way), but what does it matter about the bullies' motivation when their targets are really the ones growing up feeling unsafe and unloved and in way too many cases killing themselves? And why does it even matter whether it's "real" bullying or just "perception"? Are some kids more thick-skinned than others? Bully for them (pardon the pun)! Ti nem that is entirely irrelevant to The Conversation. One could argue that all cases of verbal abuse are a matter of "perception," but that doesn't change the psychological toll it can have on some people.
This is also why I take issue with these sort of articles where Kelly and Gabe seem to suggest that a person's eventual level of success and/or hotness should somehow erase (and/or render them forbidden from ever talking about) any hardship (or PERCEPTION of hardship) suffered in the past. Yes, for these beautiful celebrities and many others, It Got Better, but the only reason It Gets Better is even a thing, is to make young people aware of the possibility for a brighter future, not to be used retroactively as a "suck it up"-style platitude once they've reached it.
Ugh. I apologize for this Very Serious Interlude on this platform that I normally reserve for Very Unserious Interludes in Day. So carry on, everybody. Boobs! Red hair! Porcelain face!
I think her change was "subtle" because she wasn't that big of an asshole to begin with. I watched Bridesmaids a few too many times and I haven't seen in the Annie character what Gabe apparently saw. Certainly not comparable to Charlize's character in Young Adult. But that's just me. Perhaps I'm a bigger female asshole than I think.
Oh man, hahahaha! Good luck finding subjects to film, Brett Ratner!
"Yeah, you know, I've been hiding my sexuality because this is Hollywood and even though I'm not ashamed of who I am, it's nobody's business who I sleep with and I'd still prefer getting the types of jobs that aren't predicated on my sexual orientation, but when I heard Brett Ratner, of the homophobic slurs and questionable directing skills, was making these PSAs, I thought 'Yeah, no, it'd be stupid NOT to do this!'" -- Nobody even remotely famous
You guys, I have been sitting on this information for a long time, because I am too embarrassed to recommend to anyone in my life. But then I figured this was as good a time as any to come out as a proud fan of Switched at Birth! No, no, hear me out!
Yes, it is a silly ABC family show with the lamest title, premise and teenage acting you've ever imagined, but for realsies, IT IS GOOD. Not totally non-ironically good, but it is worth watching for the depiction of deaf culture alone. And it strikes the perfect balance of watchable and makefunofable that I believe we're all looking for. That is all.
Well, I really only used religion as an example of Inoffensive Choices People Make Sometimes That Should Not Put Them In Danger of Firing. Maybe not a great example of that, as of course people can and do sometimes claim really weird shit in the name of religious freedom. But, my real point is that I don't think it's necessarily smart to make the distinction between factors beyond vs. under our control (in the - to use your term - 'benign' cases of such) when assessing discriminatory practices.
Yes to this whole thread. But do you guys really think Lindsay was that bad of a bully throughout this competition. Maybe I'm being naive and fooled by the sweet NC accent, but I didn't think she was that awful. The only time I remember her being really dismissive of Beverly was during The Great Halibut Fiasco of 2012, and I feel like at least part of that can be attributed to the general stress and uneasiness that always seems to surround the restaurant wars challenge. And it must have been really difficult for Lindsay (or any chef) to have relinquished cooking control to another chef, especially one that you maybe don't really respect very much? I don't know, I actually thought Lindsay has cooked pretty consistently and behaved fairly professional throughout the whole thing, and I'm glad she made it into the final over Ed, whose biggest sin was just not having much of a personality, the poor dear.
So Elvis Costello's real name actually IS Declan McManus? Just like Jack Donaghy said three years ago? Does that mean he is also an international art thief? I think yes.
Listen, I get it: it's refreshing that Bill O'Reilly expressed an opinion that some folks would find surprising (you and I are on the same page on this one, Gabe - he is a FAKER!) and one that will likely cause him to lose points with his general viewership. But let's not give him too shiny of a medal for not being... er... pretending to be a total asshole for once. It sets a bad precedent, you know?
Ooooh, I'm not sure I'm completely comfortable with this assessment. I can appreciate your thinking and what I believe you're really saying, but I don't think your "rule" can be applied universally. For example, what if the spokesperson were a Muslim? Or a Jewish? (That is the correct syntax, right?) Religion is a choice some folks make as well, and it would be equally unfair, in my opinion, to demand they be removed as spokesperson of something. At the end of the day, that alarmist attitude all boils down to hatred and bigotry in my book - just another form of "us and them" mentality.
What's that other movie where some teenagers escape a catastrophic event with their lives, but then fate tracks them down and systematically kills them one by one?
I don't looove Nasim Pedrad myself. She's fine, but I think Vanessa Bayer is the best "new" performer and Abby Elliott's got some good impressions that aren't featured nearly enough.
Comments