Aww.
Relief.
Purple People Eater.
Yeah, I love clouds.
Pontificating.
Globetrotter.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, May 30, 2011
Leave A Message
A couple weeks ago Nike came out with a women's surf video called "Leave A Message." I watched some of it and the girls were ripping, except for the hot ones who were just hot. I'm cool with that.
In the aftermath of this release has been an interesting discussion and series of op-ed pieces in the surf world about women's sponsorship money and the whole female professional surf world. It's wrong, claim some women (http://www.theinertia.com/business-media/proliferating-stereotypes-for-profit/), to sponsor women for their looks while men are sponsored (ostensibly) for their talent. Not so fast, says I.
This whole debate functions around this assumption that the powers that be in surfing have some sort of conspiracy against women who are talented at surfing but don't look cute in bikinis. They must be a member of the same secret society that chooses good looking women to sponsor in every other professional sport. Or the slightly larger secret society that chooses attractive women to be more successful in the workplace. My point: It's fucking nature.
Men are athletes who like to look at good looking women. Women like to watch men compete and like to see good looking women modeling the clothes they're considering buying. There is no sport at which women compete at a higher level than men. Tennis is close, but Kim Clijsters gets smoked by a one-arm, one-legged Rafa Nadal any day of the week.
The author of the article I linked above is a former professional longboarder and is not particularly attractive nor unattractive. I get her perspective that we should focus on talent. The problem is that men and women alike prefer to watch men compete because men are better. She points out that men make $3.45 for every $1 female professional surfers make. Well, fine. Men make more money for the surf brands that sponsor events and the men themselves. There are other careers that are more lucrative for women than men, like hosting talk shows.
At the end of the day we only have nature to blame. Men and women are built differently with brains that operate differently. Trying to force equal prize money for men and women does not make a lot of sense. We can promote fairness (like not always sending the women out in the shittiest conditions), but how do we determine what is fair? Is "fair" is taking sponsorships away from cute girls who can surf decent, and giving them to a girl who rips but looks like a trog?
If we look at how much female professional surfers contribute to the sports popularity and profitability versus what percent of prize money they get, they're probably overpaid. You can fight it, but you'd just be fighting human nature.
In the aftermath of this release has been an interesting discussion and series of op-ed pieces in the surf world about women's sponsorship money and the whole female professional surf world. It's wrong, claim some women (http://www.theinertia.com/business-media/proliferating-stereotypes-for-profit/), to sponsor women for their looks while men are sponsored (ostensibly) for their talent. Not so fast, says I.
This whole debate functions around this assumption that the powers that be in surfing have some sort of conspiracy against women who are talented at surfing but don't look cute in bikinis. They must be a member of the same secret society that chooses good looking women to sponsor in every other professional sport. Or the slightly larger secret society that chooses attractive women to be more successful in the workplace. My point: It's fucking nature.
Men are athletes who like to look at good looking women. Women like to watch men compete and like to see good looking women modeling the clothes they're considering buying. There is no sport at which women compete at a higher level than men. Tennis is close, but Kim Clijsters gets smoked by a one-arm, one-legged Rafa Nadal any day of the week.
The author of the article I linked above is a former professional longboarder and is not particularly attractive nor unattractive. I get her perspective that we should focus on talent. The problem is that men and women alike prefer to watch men compete because men are better. She points out that men make $3.45 for every $1 female professional surfers make. Well, fine. Men make more money for the surf brands that sponsor events and the men themselves. There are other careers that are more lucrative for women than men, like hosting talk shows.
At the end of the day we only have nature to blame. Men and women are built differently with brains that operate differently. Trying to force equal prize money for men and women does not make a lot of sense. We can promote fairness (like not always sending the women out in the shittiest conditions), but how do we determine what is fair? Is "fair" is taking sponsorships away from cute girls who can surf decent, and giving them to a girl who rips but looks like a trog?
If we look at how much female professional surfers contribute to the sports popularity and profitability versus what percent of prize money they get, they're probably overpaid. You can fight it, but you'd just be fighting human nature.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Pixx
Venice Pier
El Porto, windy and tiny
Mr. Fox
Yum.
This morning, Venice/ MdR
Wind= bad surf and awesome clouds
Friday, May 6, 2011
Deaf to Dumb
The last few days I have been watching the live webcast of the Nike Lowers Pro - one of the biggest surf competitions of the year taking place in San Clemente, CA. At the end of each heat the winner is interviewed on the beach. Many of the heat winners of this event have been from Brazil so they give interviews in English then address their fans in Portuguese. It's forgivable that some of these young gents may not speak the best English and appear less than articulate. It happens all the time with anyone who has learned a new language (See: me in France last year).
However, one young man stands out as particularly lacking of intellect in spite of his athletic brilliance (I met this young guy in France last year, as it turns out, and he was one of the nicest pros I have encountered). While he did not sound too bright in English I noticed that his simpleness came across just as clearly in Portuguese. I know little (i.e. no) Portuguese; the cues were couched in his tone, mid-word chuckles, and facial movement.
I was fascinated. How does this "translate" to those speaking our own language? Is it possible to appear smart without actually being smart? This could explain the master bullshitter/ scam artist. Do other people who are actually smart appear dumb because of their inability to portray the preferred non-verbal cues? The inability accurately display one's intellect could be a huge barrier to opportunity.
However, one young man stands out as particularly lacking of intellect in spite of his athletic brilliance (I met this young guy in France last year, as it turns out, and he was one of the nicest pros I have encountered). While he did not sound too bright in English I noticed that his simpleness came across just as clearly in Portuguese. I know little (i.e. no) Portuguese; the cues were couched in his tone, mid-word chuckles, and facial movement.
I was fascinated. How does this "translate" to those speaking our own language? Is it possible to appear smart without actually being smart? This could explain the master bullshitter/ scam artist. Do other people who are actually smart appear dumb because of their inability to portray the preferred non-verbal cues? The inability accurately display one's intellect could be a huge barrier to opportunity.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Writing Sux
Venice
Go Burger, Hollywood
Matty B and CB, Jello shots, Newps
Pepper Sky
Rich
Tarp up
Bike bath on a windy afternoon, Venice
Don't mind if I do
Marina del Rey
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Freedom
*Warning: This piece contains issues that could be accurately described as "white people problems."
There is something to be said for freedom. America is based on it. We fight wars for it. We take it away from people who do harm to others and society. But is all freedom good for us?
Being unemployed affords one a couple luxuries: a new perspective and time to think about the things that perspective makes one see. I see a difference between freedom to do things and freedom from doing things.
Freedom to do anything seems like a natural state of being in which one is left with nothing but his free will and desire to make some things happen, but I don't think it's so simple. We need some structure around which to make decisions and build our careers, relationships and hobbies. Our families and hometowns provide some of this. I consider the difference between different friends who are the same age in medical or law school or have great careers going versus friends who are chronically unemployed. They all (at least from my perspective) have the freedom to choose any career. The former simply had an easier time making that decision. The others - myself included - have to be a bit jealous.
The ability to choose one's own fate is a cruel mistress. It's like being offered three wishes, or choosing which mutual fund to invest in: sure, you can pick anything, but choose wrong and you could regret it forever. Do I favor the extreme of this, such as arranged marriages or parents forcing their kids into certain careers? No. But freedom, as the brilliant Team America said, isn't free, it costs folks like you and me.
I feel that most people value freedom from more highly without knowing it. For example, we want to be free from unsafe work conditions, pollution of the environment, crime in our neighborhoods, government intrusion in our lives, etc. As long as we are free from oppression our lives are at least decent. Recent uprisings in the Middle East can be ascribed to this. They have relatively similar socioeconomic stratification and unemployment rates as the US, but are not as free from the bad that goes on around them. Freedom to choose can be nice, but I'll take freedom from.
There is something to be said for freedom. America is based on it. We fight wars for it. We take it away from people who do harm to others and society. But is all freedom good for us?
Being unemployed affords one a couple luxuries: a new perspective and time to think about the things that perspective makes one see. I see a difference between freedom to do things and freedom from doing things.
Freedom to do anything seems like a natural state of being in which one is left with nothing but his free will and desire to make some things happen, but I don't think it's so simple. We need some structure around which to make decisions and build our careers, relationships and hobbies. Our families and hometowns provide some of this. I consider the difference between different friends who are the same age in medical or law school or have great careers going versus friends who are chronically unemployed. They all (at least from my perspective) have the freedom to choose any career. The former simply had an easier time making that decision. The others - myself included - have to be a bit jealous.
The ability to choose one's own fate is a cruel mistress. It's like being offered three wishes, or choosing which mutual fund to invest in: sure, you can pick anything, but choose wrong and you could regret it forever. Do I favor the extreme of this, such as arranged marriages or parents forcing their kids into certain careers? No. But freedom, as the brilliant Team America said, isn't free, it costs folks like you and me.
I feel that most people value freedom from more highly without knowing it. For example, we want to be free from unsafe work conditions, pollution of the environment, crime in our neighborhoods, government intrusion in our lives, etc. As long as we are free from oppression our lives are at least decent. Recent uprisings in the Middle East can be ascribed to this. They have relatively similar socioeconomic stratification and unemployment rates as the US, but are not as free from the bad that goes on around them. Freedom to choose can be nice, but I'll take freedom from.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Visible Accessories
In the field of sociology, that in which I was classically and expertly trained as an undergraduate, theorists speak of "symbolic interaction." Covering aspects of social psychology, this generally states that people interact with what they see in other people. For example, we treat the same person different if he is driving a Lamborghini versus riding a skateboard. That guy could be Shaun White. Same guy, different treatment.
We all do this to some extent and it's not really a bad way to gain information about somebody, but I recently noticed a couple examples of this with people in my life who do it so blatantly that it's almost offensive. One does it for narcissistic means; the other as a mating ritual.
-First, a guy I used to know. This gentleman was an aspiring artist an serial accessorizer. Any activity that he did, he took a photo of it and put it on facebook and on his actual wall. His living room was full of every book he had ever read, and they were as esoteric as he could find. His music selection was always some shit you had never heard of. On the surface, judging from all his apparent activities and interests, this guy seemed really cool, but when people met him they would realize what a douche he was.
-Second is a girl I went out with recently. She approached me at a bar so I assumed she was interested and we ended up meeting up after for drinks. She was quite friendly if not a little dumb. She was from the 909 and didn't defy the stereotype. While we were at a bar, she asked me if I was attracted to tattoos. I said I wasn't particularly attracted to them but didn't mind. She said, "I looooove tattoos. I just think they're soooo sexy. They drive me nuts."
Later, she asked if there was one thing in the opposite sex that I'm attracted to and don't know why. I said not really. Again, she said, "I am sooooo into dreadlocks. They're so hot!" When I was leaving her place I noticed a firefighter's sticker on the back of her car and, displaying my sad sense of humor, asked if she was a firefighter. She replied, "No...but I date them!"
Ahem, she knew I do not have tattoos or dreadlocks, and am not a firefighter. It seemed that she was choosing partners based on select accessorized characteristics. That is, characteristics that can be purchased or are selected to make one seem a certain way. I consider many careers to qualify for this. I wondered what my accessory was the night she approached me. Then I realized she looked much cuter and fitter when I was drunk. By the way, another thing she loved, "LA. It's the best city everrrrr!"
Again, I think we all do this to a lesser extent. We dress as shredders, businesspeople, artists, or whatever we are, but knowing the personalities of these two people, it doesn't work when it is performed in the extreme and without a backup of viable personality. It seems to follow the hipster model of "look cool first, be cool second." I hope these people find each other and leave the keepers and good friends for myself and those who are like minded because they are lame.
We all do this to some extent and it's not really a bad way to gain information about somebody, but I recently noticed a couple examples of this with people in my life who do it so blatantly that it's almost offensive. One does it for narcissistic means; the other as a mating ritual.
-First, a guy I used to know. This gentleman was an aspiring artist an serial accessorizer. Any activity that he did, he took a photo of it and put it on facebook and on his actual wall. His living room was full of every book he had ever read, and they were as esoteric as he could find. His music selection was always some shit you had never heard of. On the surface, judging from all his apparent activities and interests, this guy seemed really cool, but when people met him they would realize what a douche he was.
-Second is a girl I went out with recently. She approached me at a bar so I assumed she was interested and we ended up meeting up after for drinks. She was quite friendly if not a little dumb. She was from the 909 and didn't defy the stereotype. While we were at a bar, she asked me if I was attracted to tattoos. I said I wasn't particularly attracted to them but didn't mind. She said, "I looooove tattoos. I just think they're soooo sexy. They drive me nuts."
Later, she asked if there was one thing in the opposite sex that I'm attracted to and don't know why. I said not really. Again, she said, "I am sooooo into dreadlocks. They're so hot!" When I was leaving her place I noticed a firefighter's sticker on the back of her car and, displaying my sad sense of humor, asked if she was a firefighter. She replied, "No...but I date them!"
Ahem, she knew I do not have tattoos or dreadlocks, and am not a firefighter. It seemed that she was choosing partners based on select accessorized characteristics. That is, characteristics that can be purchased or are selected to make one seem a certain way. I consider many careers to qualify for this. I wondered what my accessory was the night she approached me. Then I realized she looked much cuter and fitter when I was drunk. By the way, another thing she loved, "LA. It's the best city everrrrr!"
Again, I think we all do this to a lesser extent. We dress as shredders, businesspeople, artists, or whatever we are, but knowing the personalities of these two people, it doesn't work when it is performed in the extreme and without a backup of viable personality. It seems to follow the hipster model of "look cool first, be cool second." I hope these people find each other and leave the keepers and good friends for myself and those who are like minded because they are lame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)