Non-Fiction Essays About Things

Remember this widely spread short video "Oppressed Majority" by Eleonore Pourriat? I saw it all over social media when it was released, and it was praised by almost every outlet -- "more thought-provoking than laugh-inducing," and the following from the New Yorker quotes -- “Try Doubting Everyday Sexism After Watching This Video,” reads the Huffington Post’s headline. Upworthy’s says “A French Film Showing Men What Being a Woman Feels Like Kinda Nails It.”

But does it really? The director thought that just by switching the gender of the person oppressed/at risk (women) the actually [relatively] unoppressed (men) will be able to see from their perspective. Social media and feminists everywhere spread this video like wildfire, and when I finally clicked on it, I was unimpressed. I was glad that someone decided to take the concept and make something easily digestible (it's short) and that it got a considerable amount of social media attention and of course thousands of people talking about the issues in it. However, the video failed to make the waves it could have.

Why? Because the men watching it still cannot understand what it's like to be a woman.

Ok, well, first, the good parts -- the early scene when the leading man asks his friend why he is covered up so much (it indeed strikes the viewer as foolish when flipped on its head) and the following rape scene was quite scary. The settings, the acting, the language is all very good and realistic. Well, I don't really think the lead male is a very good actor as his lines are delivered stale and flat, emotionless and unaffected (especially after the attempted rape scene).

But overall, the women are not scary. The viewer may think that the women are being mean by minimalizing the man's complaints and his rape, but the viewer is still unable to feel afraid, or experience the claustrophobia a woman feels when she is alone or in a situation where many men are around. The ending falls a bit flat, especially concerning the man's final scene and his confrontation with his girlfriend. The language seems forced -- "It's like our brothers fought for nothing!" and it takes away from the realism.

Again, why does it fail to portray fear? First, it is because even though the story takes place in an imaginary world where the roles are flied, the viewer is still living in and grew up in a society where men do not deal with such fears, nor are they internalized. A common retort to the cat-calling argument is, "You should feel good! They're just complimenting you!" A male viewer watching this film would probably say, "He isn't that attractive. I would be happy to have been stared at and complimented by those girls!!" Even the "unattractive" homeless woman who cat-calls at him isn't very threatening -- she says rude, vulgar things, but she doesn't have a strong physical presence that unnerves the viewer enough to arouse discomfort. The rapist women also fail to intimidate, but I don't think it's the actors' fault.

It is that element that needed to be more pronounced. It is the underlying reason why women are uncomfortable with the looks and the stares, the unwarranted "compliments." Words can be ignored, but a physical attack might not. Cat-calls are scary because if the woman responds, it sounds like a "yes" to a sexual invitation or, at the very least, an uncomfortable conversation with a stranger. If she does not respond, the cat-caller might become angry and demand a response. If she responds negatively, the cat-caller might use verbal threats and possibly back them up with physical gestures. Just the verbal threats alone are enough. Whether the woman avoids or responds, the cat-calls come with a physical implication.

The video does not address that fear, that connection, well. Men today are almost trained to want that kind of attention from women. Are there not enough movies and music videos with men surrounded by women who are dancing, half-naked, and DTF all the time, no matter what the man looks like? Men think this is normal, even women do too, and such scenes are rarely flipped on their heads where a woman is surrounded by dancing, sexy, half-naked men groping them, DTF, and gladly, willingly being accessories and sexual toys. Have you ever seen a music video with a male singer and all male backup dancers? But I’m sure you've seen a female singer with female backup dancers…

In general, women are seen as soft, and even if they have a sharp tongue, men are rarely physically "threatened'. That's the whole reason why sexism/misogyny evolved in the first place! Men used strength to dominate. Men used dominance to rape, et cetera.

So how can men possibly understand how uncomfortable it is to be a woman in a man's world? They probably won't be able to feel it through this video. I think it's a good introductory lesson, but it lacks the punch to make a lasting impression.

This concept needs another attempt to work. It needs a new male lead. It needs to be a full-length film. The physical presence of the women needs to be more pronounced and scary.

Who can make it?

http://wifey.tv/video/this-is-what-everyday-sexism-feels-like-to-a-man/

I cannot stand people who go to college expecting to graduate with a job. It is not your college’s fault. It is yours and yours alone. Here is a very basic equation to remember:

College ≠ Job

Colleges and universities are essentially places for higher education. Not job education. Higher education. They are places where people who want to learn can go and learn and gain experience. You go to college to achieve an in-depth knowledge of the world around you or a specific part of the world/society/etc that interests you. Repeat: you do not go to college for a job.

Education is not and has not ever been, at root, meant to teach you skills that will give you a salary (since everyone complaining about not having a job is only concerned with the salary, hence the liberal arts degrees getting so much flack). Even if it does so indirectly or inadvertently, or those skills end up being applicable or even essential for a certain job, that is not its purpose. Education is supposed to teach you how to think in different ways and understand the world you live in and the world around you. Education is meant for us to understand our humanity. Universities allow us to study a specific field in-depth, further and more critically and more practically and more thoughtfully than we could have in middle or high school. Primary and secondary schools have huge obligations. They must satisfy social, physical, emotional, psychological needs of their students in addition to teaching them about, and living in, and coping with the world around them through social studies, science, math, language studies... the list goes literally on and on. Once we have formed our bases in primary and secondary school, we have the choice to move to higher education to expand our base knowledge and again, think deeper, think better; discover who we are and where we are in the world, and learn with other individuals who are seeking those same answers or at least an understanding of that.

I think people started thinking that College = Job because employers (the jobs) were not satisfied with workers who only had high school level education (a base) and started to prefer workers who more thoroughly studied a field related to the job, so when it came down to hiring a new worker, people with only high school diplomas were cast aside. It has thus morphed into a society that thinks that colleges are obligated to guarantee them a job, which, when you think about that statement, sounds completely against the essence of what education is. What it sounds like is: If I pay for four years of college/pass my requirements, I will get a job.

College is not an Amazon shopping cart. You do not buy a job. You earn a job. People who are hired after college are people who have shown an employer that the knowledge and experience they attained in college and how they will use it can benefit them. A diploma does not mean that you can. It means that you have tried and passed certain benchmarks, but does not mean that you really know. How that is measured is how well you can present yourself, your skill set, and your knowledge to your desired employer.

It is not the job of your college to give you a salary/job. It should provide you with resources and access to knowledge that will help you learn about what you want to learn about, and the great thing is is that this time, unlike in middle or high school, you can choose what you learn, which is why it isn’t spoon-fed to you. If you want it, you can choose to look for it. A good college provides you with opportunities to find them and develop and grow and ways to think and process more complex subjects, but they are not responsible for how you use (or neglect) that privilege.

Do you remember The Maine? Have you listened to them since their sweet, pop rock ballad “Into Your Arms” and first single “Everything I Ask For” that you probably blared in your car on the way down to the beach in high school?

They’re still making music, four full albums later, and what’s beautiful about them is that it’s the same lineup as before, but with better lyrics and a definitive, contemporary rock sound. I have little to no complaints about the evolution of their sound. I’m really pumped that they still exist, although there’s no denying that you probably won’t hear about them unless you’re deliberately searching for them on YouTube, or happen to see in your local concert venue’s e-newsletter that they’re coming around town (”OH MY GOD I LOVED THEM SO MUCH IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!”). This isn’t the same ol’ The Maine. Which is great, which is natural, which is cool. They grew up just like you did.

But their music videos reflect their reliance on their now cult-ish, small, and devout fan base.

Their most-viewed video with about 5,000,000+ hits is for “Into Your Arms,” and rightly so. The song itself is beautiful, and the video is well-shot, interesting, unique. The camera moves in harmony with the melody; the band members look heavenly; the colors match the heartwarming tone of the song and theme. I think it’s a very good example of the ideal ‘performance-story video’ that many of the best music videos are a part of.

Following Can’t Stop Won’t Stop, they came out with Black & White, and their lead video for “Inside of You” topped off at only 631,000 views. It’s a shame because it has a cute story and a nice performance sequence. Perhaps it was the change in musical style that caused the low viewership, but nonetheless, 631,000 is alright. Another song they made a video for from Black & White was “Right Girl,” and, unfortunately, the video they made signaled the end of their suave performance-story video hits. A catchy song with the familiar The Maine guitar sound, all it needed was a good video to get the momentum back for their new album... and yet, it was an all-story video, starring the band, who you never see singing, followed by a camera that doesn’t move to the song. I think of it as a silent film that someone threw a vocal track over. It’s boring, and the only person who would watch the video from the beginning to end would be someone who was already a fan. Not only that, the video doesn’t really seem to connect to the song... “Right Girl,” as of today, tops off at 380,000 views. Ouch.

Their next album Pioneer didn’t even have a video for their lead single, “Some Days,” which I regard to be a major misstep in dealing with their declining popularity. Not that you ‘need’ popularity to be a good band... but, you gotta give them something, especially when you’re not playing to favor the giants like MTV or the indie, Warped scene anymore.

They must have realized this was a mistake because they decided to release videos for their next album Forever Halloween, which truly is an underrated, raw, classic. Two videos got some love, “Love & Drugs” and “These Four Words,” but neither broke 1,000,000. “Love & Drugs” got 822,000, and “These Four Words” got only 522,000. To be honest, both stats are disappointing. “These Four Words” is a really emotional, honest song, but I feel that both songs are shot pretty flatly in a way that garners no visual interest -- no sweeping camera, no cuts to the tune...

Following that comes American Candy, with another catchy single, “English Girls.” Another interesting story, both in the original lyrics and in the video itself, but put together, the two separate stories don’t seem to connect. The lead singer John is present in the ‘performance’ cuts, in a black room lit only by tubes of white fluorescent lights, and the bandmates are instrumentless accessories to the video, just hanging around the setting’s bar or whatever. John looks good, but it’s hard to see him in the lighting. In fact, the whole video is pretty dim except for the very last scene where everyone is waking up in their hotel room.

Total hits as of today: 165,000. Sigh.

I argue that the video did not support shareability. I wouldn’t share the video, to be honest. It’s just not interesting enough, even though I respect the song.

And at that thought -- I see they created a live action lyric video for the song, which at 475,000 views, rivals the official video itself! And with good reason -- it’s more interesting, it’s brighter, you can see all of the band, it’s fun and the cuts capture the light, fast-paced rock sound of the song. I would much rather watch this than the official video, not because it has a good story, but because it matches the mood of the song!

Alright, I know. The Devil Wears Prada isn’t exactly the newest flick on the block. It has become a modern chick flick classic by this point, and since its 2006 release has been quoted, gif’d, and blogged about all over the world.

And I do love the movie. But after watching it for perhaps the fifteenth time on my flight to Europe this past week (yes, how very couture of me -- and yes, I did go to Paris like Andrea), instead of entertaining me, it saddened me.

Andrea (Andy/Anne Hathaway’s character) surrounded herself with a hoarde of unsupportive shit friends. It was hard to watch them beat her down and have her pick up the pieces and fight for their affections. I speak namely of the following:

A. Her boyfriend Nate

B. Her best chick friend Tracie

I am going to write with the assumption you’ve watched the film before, so bear with me as I rant:

Andy takes on a job that initially, she has no interest in. She takes it to further her career, to make connections, and vows to quit after one year. Only one year of being a slave to a job she doesn’t like, so she can spend the rest of her life doing something she wants to in journalism.

Doesn’t sound bad right? She gave herself a time limit, and even if the going would get tough, she wouldn’t be in it forever. She knew that working for Runway was going to give her opportunities she had only dreamed of.

Her friends seem supportive, kind of. Her boyfriend Nate only ever seems interested in getting in her pants and eating. He doesn’t address her initial concerns, but at least seems to agree that since it’s only for a year she can handle it.

Which is true, she does handle it. She owns it. But it’s Nate that can’t.

At any rate, Andrea may have started off with no interest, understanding, or affection for the fashion industry, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t anything worth considering in the first place, a fact she learns as she gets more involved with her work and with fitting in at the Runway offices. Note that she learns. Adults are allowed to learn, aren’t they? Or develop interests in something new? Or perhaps completely change their minds about something after opening themselves to it? That sounds like a mature thing to be able to do.

Andrea starts wearing more fashionable clothes and caring about how she looks. And she looks great and it shows, when she smiles as she goes to work and develops a sense of style, “That looks great on you!” she compliments Nigel, although at one time she was once an unfashionable toad. Then she learns that Runway magazine does more than just shots of pretty models in pretty clothes -- as an aspiring journalist, in one scene when they are putting together “The Book” she notices and comments that some other well-known and esteemed journalists are contributing to an issue of Runway. How cool!

Later, she is wide-eyed and impressed at Fashion Week in Paris, because she now understands the work involved in the production and development of the fashions on display. She has developed a greater appreciation for something she had once dismissed. Is that wrong of her? Whether it be fashion or not, she doesn’t seem to be faking interest in her job or the respect she develops for her boss Miranda, the “dragon-lady” of Runway.

She tried not to stiff her friends or her boyfriend, although they were completely unsupportive. Again, this gig was only supposed to be for a year, and none of them showed any compassion for her when she was late or unable to attend something. I see that she gave Tracie an expensive purse (which she gobbles up immediately) and goes to her art gallery, and even though she is very late for Nate’s birthday, she skipped out on an opportunity to make New York Times journalist connections and tried to make up for it to him. But the stiff-necked loser boyfriend only appreciated her clothes when he was in the mood to take them off, and she had clearly come a few hours too late to be ravished for his birthday, so he grumpily storms off to bed.

Instead of pushing her to excel at her job so she can leave it for one that she really wants or has greater flexibility, Nate and Tracie condemn her for always working (and they know that she is working for a very demanding boss, but probably only that since they never want to ask her about how she’s enjoying her job or about her boss anyway). Did she not say it was only for a year? And that she was trying her best to balance the two?

Her friends and boyfriend turned on her when she needed them the most. Nate only wanted her when she was able to sit around eat cheesecake with him and have sex, but when she wanted to do something for herself or enjoy her work -- or god forbid, develop an interest in something new like fashion and caring about how she looks -- he develops no sense of empathy or understanding, and simply walks out on her. She didn’t change as a person, honestly, it seemed like she was doing something she had always wanted to do.

Perhaps the most deplorable part of this film is the last scene when she meets with Nate at a coffee shop. Why she decides to meet him in the first place is beyond me, but regardless, he notes that he got a new job as head chef at so and so restaurant in Boston. Isn’t that nice for him. He won’t be working long hours, will he? Ever? Gosh, if only he had a supportive girlfriend --

Cue Andrea, who states that she wishes she could still be with him. He says they could “work something out.”

HA. Excuse me?! Boston. She just got a journalist job in New York City. So... is she going to have to move for that one? To support his ass? Where was his support when she needed it? Get out of town.

Almost every day I read up some business article about how fast fashion is causing all the great brand giants (like Gap and Abercrombie) to lose sales and force them to match their speedy idea-to-production rates. The major retailers are at a loss to compete! "No one is loyal to anything anymore!!" they pout.

The reality is that fast-fashion brands like H&M and Forever21 aren't really to blame though. They are just selling their clothes for exactly what they're worth, instead of adding ridiculous mark-up for the same quality items from big brands. The major retailers have been scamming customers for years, and only in the past decade have other retailers emerged to topple their thrones.

For example, you have a $6 tank top from Forever21. It does its job as a tank top. It's not particularly soft or well-knit. It's made in China. It's just a basic tank top. And such a basic tank top is worth about $6.

Now let's take a comparable tank top from Gap. Gap's tank top is simple, not particularly soft or well-knit, and was also made in China. But this one is $20. It is not worth $20. Not for the style, and surely not for the fabric quality.

So where would you go to buy your tank top?

Okay okay. You say, well what about crop tops and popular fashion trends? (Well first, these trends don't tend to come and go as fast as everyone says. Crop tops and high-waisted numbers have been increasing in popularity for the past three years now, enough time for everyone to make options that suit their brand image...)

If I buy a crop top from Forever21, I am not expecting it to be of a very high quality. It's cheap. But where else am I going to buy cute crop tops, let alone one that's a good quality fabric?

Gap doesn't sell many crop tops that don't suck... Abercrombie has some, but at arguably the same quality of the Forever21 crop and triple the price, I think I'd pass on that one too.

What I'm getting at, is that people will be loyal to brands when their quality doesn't suck or when expect to get what they pay for.

Some examples:

Do people still buy brand name handbags? Yes, because the quality is (should be/is expected to be) higher than one bought at a low-price brand, and the user expects to use it for many occasions.

Do people spend tons of money at Sephora for makeup even though drugstore brands are many and cheap? Yes, because they want a high quality product that they're going to stick on themselves and define how they look to other people and in photos.

Is American Apparel making money still? Yes.

People will spend the money if you offer a product that doesn't suck. And for years and years, Gap and the big brands have been offering limited selections (like seasonal wardrobes) of poorly made items at ridiculous prices. Fast-fashion came in, cut out the bullshit, and said,"Here's an average, not special or well-made somethin-somethin, and it's less than $20. Here ya go, don't expect much."

Whenever I get a crappy shirt from H&M or Forever21, I don't think, "Wow! I would never have expected this to be shit!" when the buttons fall off or hems become undone within two months. And I tend not to regret it because it wasn't expensive in the first place. The item met my expectations for the price, so I don't blame the brand. I still go to H&M and Forever21 for certain things (especially those I really don't care much about wearing often or having to replace regularly, like my socks, that I always manage to lose...).

But if I go to Gap or Abercrombie, and pay $25-40 for a top (especially the t-shirts or tanks), it had better be comfortable! It had better not lose a button or have loose seams, or wrinkle too easily. Could the fabric be nice or not made in a sweatshop? Is that too much to ask of a leading brand that only makes a select number of items per season and has worldwide presence and a huge profit margin?? So when it does suck, which is more often than not, I think, "Wow, I should have just spent my money at Forever21 and bought TWO shirts that suck instead of one!"

Fast-fashion is successful not only because of price, but because they jump on new runway trends (which may or may not suck), then make some designs ASAP and get them on the production line. Not every style works because not everything that goes well on the runway actually translates well into real life. A lot of clothes end up on clearance the next season.

And this is an advantage for the major, limited-release brands. Fast-fashion brands test the markets, but they aren't the ones who decide the trends. They're just the first to put it on the line.

Everybody knows it as a classic, but when was the last time you really watched the movie? Like really really watched it? I watched it 6 times in a row because the kids at a school I'm teaching (all six classrooms of 8th graders) are watching it...It's vapid, simplistic, and ridden with holes. I had more questions than answers, and the drama felt forced and overdone. Good parts: Gertie, the only form of Drew Barrymore I can stand. And she was perfect in her role, her cute little voice and mannerisms. 'I taught him how to talk he can talk now,' she says in one breath as she scratches her nose. That precocious little voice is too much for me. Elliott, with his 'ah-ha!' laugh and, it must be with these siblings, a soft voice. He acts his part 100%. I recall vividly when he fiddles with the thermometer in his mouth and accidentally puts it in the wrong way.  Interesting shots, thanks to Spielberg, meant for drama and maximum style. I don't blame him for his sweeping, carefully choreographed shots, but do a little for the lack of reality. Bad parts: Where do I start? First, why is that spaceship so damn bright? Do aliens need electricity like that? Do they even use electricity??? Why is E.T. a boy? Why isn't E.T. a girl? Why did Elliott have to immediately gender E.T.? Because otherwise they couldn't become good friends? Because otherwise they'd have a strange relationship? This theory is supported by Elliott's day at school, where he drunkenly flirts with the one girl he's friends with (she has a total of two lines by the way, and looks completely uncomfortable with young Elliott's very adult drunken behavior) and then kisses her. First of all how come alcohol has the same effect on E.T. as a regular human? How did he learn to open the can, or that there's food in the refrigerator?? At any rate, E.T. must be a boy because in the end, when Elliott says he loves E.T. and they basically have that moment where they ask to stay with each other, if E.T. were a girl there would be some risk of interspecies love? Why can't they be good friends if E.T. was a girl? Is it because if E.T. was a girl, Elliott would be mean to her? E.T. would be harassed?? What's the deal? It would have made no difference at all except offend those afraid of boys and girls being anything but sexual objects to each other. The only reason why Gertie is even included in this story is because she has the Peter-Pan protection of youth. Too young to be sexualized. And the mother. She is the worst. I hate every scene she's in. What a terrible mother. While she is undoubtedly stressed by her divorce, her kids are just fine, and she keeps stressing herself out by their care. The food, the dishes, the household chores, the curfew, all of these things are very important, but more than that she should be listening to her kids when they talk to her. She is overly protective and simple and thinks she knows everything. She says nothing but rules and complaints. She reads to her daughter like she should but doesn't believe in what she's reading. Maybe if their mother could lend their kids an ear every once in a while, they would have told her earlier about E.T., and maybe got him home faster without Elliott nearly dying! Gertie tried to tell her mother about E.T., but she was too busy unpacking things from the grocery store to listen to a single word her daughter said -- and come on, the eggs can wait a second. Good thing Gertie couldn't introduce E.T. at that time because when the mother finally does find out, instead of listening to her kids (who dealt with a fucking alien in their presence just fine for however many days without her interference), or asking questions, she thinks she knows whats up and tries to rush them away from E.T., even when her son demands that they stay together and says 'I think we are dying.' WE. WE!!!! This overly protective shit mother cannot listen to a single word her kids say. "Mom, I want to show you something." "What is it Michael?" in an exasperated tone. "Make the most excellent promise you can make." "Michael." demanding to see the thing. Not fucking promising anything. "Remember the goblin?" "Oh don't be silly." Do you see any words from her mouth that sound like she is a person capable of listening, comprehension, or understanding? No. Because she's not.   Dramatic spilling of her coffee was too much. The way she loosened her wrist and had the coffee drop down actually takes more effort than letting your arm go slack and just straight dropping it on the floor. But this is a movie. We need more cinematic spilling of drinks. She's also a foul liar. When E.T. is presumed dead and Gertie wishes he would come back, her mother says, 'Me too.' Bull fucking shit. If she had a gun anywhere within a foot of her first sight of E.T. she'd have shot it dead despite the completely demure and cool attitudes of her surrounding children who -- get this -- knew way better than her what was going on. As a matter of fact, she only found out about E.T. because they wanted to try to trust her for once. And right when they did she tried to send them away, and didn't listen to a single word her kids said!! What a bitch. You'd think that first major slip would have made her realize how terrible she is. Yet in a scene not long after, Gertie says, 'Are they gone?' and has the letter and flower, her mother doesn't look at her or reply with any degree of compassion. "Who?" she asks, annoyed. "Show me the letter," she demands. Pushy, authoritative bitch, who again, doesn't know shit.  So where the hell is this house located and where is the forest? Because it can't be that far if E.T. waddled his way there. In some scenes, the forest is a 2 minute bike ride. In other scenes, its a long police chase away. In the final scene, the kids have to bike through a bona fide BMX race course and residential area, then fly across half the damn state to get there.  And those friends of Michael's, what future misogynistic abusers they will grow up to be. When Elliott is terrified to go outside because he's seen something, the fuckers get up and grab knives (that aren't theirs) from the kitchen and rush outside. Like they're gonna kill something?? Was no viewer in the 80s a little alarmed at the speed they went for the knives and how apt they were to go fucking something up lethally??These little 14 year olds think they can brandish knives like it's nothing?? 'Oh they're just boys, teenagers, they're just a little rough,' you may say. I can't help but wonder what someone would say about those teenagers were they black... His friends are also completely useless at the end when Michael beckons them to help out, as is their whole 'let's split up!' plan to evade the cops later. The government didn't give a shit about those kids, they just wanted E.T.! How did they get the bikes for Elliott and Michael up to the park in time, even though it took a long car chase to get there?? The government got their shit real whacked up too. Who enters a house that isn't theirs with their arms wide out like zombies? What happened to 'Hello?' because under the masks were not scary space men but ordinary doctors and people who were completely uninterested in the fact that E.T. could talk or that the fate of the Elliott was, for a period, hinging on the life of the alien. How the fuck does that happen?? Did no one wonder?? Why didn't they test Elliott more? Right when he got better, they ushered him out of the room. When E.T. died, they acted like he was a normal person who died at the table and was ready for the morgue. Completely spazzing like shit and yelling and making a big scene during the resuscitation attempts though. In no way professional, but acting like like they were dealing with a fresh accident victim with critical wounds. When they go back to the field, why did the government take so damn long? Did no one see the giant, bedazzled driedel in the air before? Why wasn't that area blocked off from the get-go, considering they knew about the radar machine?? And the guy -- 'E.T. came to me too. I've been wishing for this since I was 10 years old.' Okay Mulder. E.T. didn't come to you. What is your position in this government operation? Why do you care so much about E.T.? And what was the meaning of that little speech you gave Elliott? 'His being here is a miracle. And you did the best that anyone could do. I'm glad he found you first.' What the fuck, bro??? How did they find out that E.T. was at Elliott's house anyway? When the gov't was radioing in to everyone's houses and tuned into theirs, they weren't exactly hearing the juiciest stuff. Elliott and Michael were talking about their dad for half the time, and the other half was 'What's this we stuff?', conversation loooooosely alluding to someone else, but no indication that it was E.T. or an alien, and even if someone had said E.T., they wouldn't have recognized that acronym! The movie needed another 10 minutes to clarify some loose ends. So what happens next? Are Michael's punk friends finally changed? Do they apologize for being complete assholes to Elliott before? Does his mother apologize and actually learn to form meaningful relationships with her kids that extends further than just maintaining the pantry stock? Does Michael also not revert to being a shit brother as he was in the first scenes? What happened to the Space Guy/Mulder character? And what of Elliott's love interest? Ah, she was one-dimensional and only there for that one scene -- first, to pull him away from the bullies, and second, to be the object of his drunken flirting and his overly dramatic kiss on the back of a kid who made a very timely (and unnecessary, and very very poorly staged) fall in between them. So she has no further purpose. As opposed to Michael's friends, her presence at the end scene would have likely involved some girlish screaming or reactions or questions and talking or tears. Since Elliott's mother was there already, we didn't need any more. Just the silent bastard bullies were needed to help bring together the final scene.

"He's gay!" "She's a slut!" "Ew she's from Disney Channel...."

Have you ever used an excuse like this to exempt yourself from listening to an artist's music? If so, wow, please step back are re-evaluate your definition of music, because I'm about to shackle you with some artists with arguably less-than-perfect popularity ratings and their exceptionally awesome albums. That is, if you could get over yourself long enough to really listen to a full track.

So here's my list of Albums You Missed Because You Were Too Busy Judging. And it starts with an artist who, if discussed in public, receives more disdain and triggered presumptions about her personal life and choices than a terrorist --

1. Miley Cyrus, Bangerz 2013

I don't care what you think about her hair, fashion, or music videos (I personally don't like the 'Adore You' one but...), or her youth as Hannah Montana, or her sexuality. Because you know what, it doesn't take away anything from this powerhouse album.

But maybe a little backstory will help you to understand the many tones and topics of this album. First of all, as a Disney Channel star, I am pretty sure that the image that the brand crafts of any of their actors or singers is not a reflection of the individual themselves. Disney Channel manufactures youths and molds their image to appeal to their teeny-bopper audience. So are you really that surprised that when Hannah Montana finally ended, she did what she actually wanted to do? I'm not, and I'm sure happy she did, because this album is fucking awesome.

Another bit of history -- before this album was released, she broke up with Liam Hemsworth, who she was engaged to marry. Ouch. a broken engagement is no laughing matter, and it broke Miley down (as I'm sure it would anybody). I have no idea what actually happened to the pair, but the album echoes some of the themes of their relationship and how she felt before ('Adore You') and after ('Wrecking Ball', 'FU', 'Someone Else').

And above all, regardless of her image, her past, her relationships, or whatever you want to talk about, you cannot deny that she has a fantastic voice. And here's a song (you may not have heard before) as proof -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSEgDLLsPz8 for the track 'Drive'

I also suggest 'FU', 'Someone Else' and ' On My Own', but you'll have to continue to keep your head out of your ass for an good twelve more minutes.

If you miss this album, it's really your loss. Haters gonna hate.

2. Justin Bieber, Believe (and Believe Acoustic) 2012

You are probably already considering clicking the X button on this tab right now. But bear with me, I mean, wasn't I right about Miley?? Even I can't stand this cocky young artist's 'swaggie' and his speaking voice makes me reel in my seat, but you cannot deny his sweet lyrics and silky singing voice. AND YES THE LYRICS ARE SWEET. Every song I've heard from him has been a love song and about him committing to one biddy and proclaiming to do his best and stay true or whatever and so forth. I haven't yet seen a video (or heard lyrics projecting an image of) of him acting like a pimp or being a dick to his girl.

But puppy love aside, there are some really solid tracks on the Believe album you missed because after joining the brainless public in unanimous hatred towards his lead singles 'Boyfriend' and 'Beauty and a Beat' (by the way, both songs about one girl and paired with relatively good music videos), like 'One Love' and 'Take You', and if you got the deluxe edition, it really is a treat -- two of the three extra tracks are positively fantastic. 'She Don't Like the Lights' should have been on the main album's track listing, and 'Maria' took a good bit of influence from Michael Jackson's 'Billie Jean.'

The acoustic versions of 'Boyfriend' and 'As Long As You Love Me' are sweet, but the best track is the made-acoustic 'Yellow Raincoat,' with a innocent storyline and catchy guitar riff, you can almost forget that this guy is a wannabe gangster at the same time.

3. Hilary Duff, Dignity 2007

The 'original' Disney Queen also shed her mass-market bubble-gum pop shell after she split with the brand, like Miley did. Except, she did it in a more socially acceptable way with her dance pop album 'Dignity'. She lost weight, wore hot classy dresses and dyed her hair brown, creating for herself a sultry, more grown-up image that separated her from always being Lizzie McGuire. In fact, I showed my hair stylist one of her brown-locked pics when I decided to go brunette in high school.

It's entirely possible that you haven't heard anything from this album since its release. She stayed mainstream and was seen on MTV with her title track 'With Love', but that wasn't the only gem your 15-year-old self was too busy dissing -- 'Oh my god I hate Hilary Duff she's so fake' -- and this album is definitely worth a second listen.

I will not go as far as to say that her vocals are particularly rich (not as good as Miley's), but the hooks and melodies are nice and some tracks can serve as the getting-ready anthem at your next girls night out, and cover your standard 20-something trials and tribulations like break-ups, recovery, work hard play hard, and bitchy friends.

When I say dancey with a good narrative, I'm speaking namely of 'Stranger', which is one of my favorite videos of all time and maybe the best, most uppity track on the album. If you're watching it again, note that she is only 19 in this video (do you feel old now? I do.) The video is about a break-up with a cheating ex-boyfriend -- do you remember the Joel Madden and Nicole Ritchie scandal of your middle school days?? Yeah, this song is about that.

Other notable tracks are 'Gypsy Woman', 'Play With Fire' (which did make the Billboard Hot Club Hits chart when it was releaseed), and 'Happy' (an excellent break-up song).

So give it a listen, and tell me -- which is best, Blonde Hilary, or Brunette Hilary?

__________________

The internet has a ton of information out there. God knows when you type in 'diet' into Google, hundreds of thousands of articles with new and conflicting advice will come up that do little more than leave you utterly confused about which to start and how to do it. It seems every day there's new research for one type of diet, or for this type of exercise, and one day it's good and the next day it's not. Of course, diets depend on the person, and some are more effective than others (depending on the person). But I, a healthy, average of height, young and active white female have tried a smorgasbord of these diets as I tried to interpret the countless pages of conflicting diet and nutritional information, and have learned some things that I'd like to share. It might help the average chick lose a bit of weight that they're self-conscious about.

  1. If you need to lose a lot of weight / want to never worry about your weight again

Do the low-carb diet. This is probably not easy for vegetarians by the way. It is extremely effective, will kill your appetite, make you feel awesome, almost eliminate your desire for sweets, and you will see the results within two weeks. However, it is not for the weak of heart -- you have to make a lot of sacrifices and be well-prepared when hunger strikes, because this diet is very hard to sustain by convenience store and fast-food menus. This is a diet for a planner, but if you make the effort, it will dazzle you.

(this is your life on low-carb)

I tried this diet, loved it, but when I didn't prepare my own lunches or went out to dinner and splurged on something sugary, the diet went kaput, and my old, sweets and carbs crazy appetite came back full force. If you can do this well enough for the first two weeks, you are really onto something good and probably won't ever think about sweets or carbs in the same way. By its nature, meaning the somewhat limited (but unlimited amounts of) foods you can eat, it is easy to lose and sustain weight loss if you stick to it especially during the first two weeks.

  2. If you want to cut back on your sugar

Carbs are legit your enemy, no matter what diet you do. You should try to stay under 100g of carbs a day if you can. However, for those with a sweet tooth (like me) or just need your carbs to get through the day because healthier options weren't around, you need to get your fix somehow.

(carry this EVERYWHERE) and you can even slank pieces into tiny tiny purses)

I suggest gum and water. Sugarfree gum (of course -- who eats the sugary kind anymore anyway? it doesn't last long at all..) when you just need a snack, and water to help confirm if you're actually just thirsty or really need to eat. If I'm hungry and not around food for a while, or am not sure how hungry I am, I chew a piece of gum to keep my sanity intact while I figure out what and how much I am going to eat.

  3. If you love your carbs and your sugar and can't do without

This will still require some patience and restraint at first, but once you get used to it (and maybe use the gum method simultaneously) it will be easy to maintain or lose a bit of your weight. However, if you want to lose a good bit of weight, you should exercise too. On this diet, you eat a fairly big meal for either lunch or dinner, but your other meals are small or very healthy. So you go crazy on some pizza at lunch time, but for dinner you eat a salad and some chips (get your delicious carbs in). You will have to hold back on your snacking to a degree, but I like this diet because I can still essentially eat whatever I want if I don't go hog wild at every meal. I also do sports, so it works well and I am a healthy 123 pds.

(but if you love yourself, do not have any Doritos hanging around -- you will not 'just eat one' and within five minutes you'll need paint thinner to get rid of the orange on your fingertips)

4. If you can't cook, hate cooking, and love breakfast

Completely contrary to my low-carb advice (which is seriously best), this is the low calorie route which still works but may be harder to maintain in the long run. The jist is that you replace your meals with cereal. But I'm not talking Lucky Charms (although totally go ahead and eat it sometimes anyway because it's the best), I'm talking the 'healthy' granola/bran based type, especially the varieties with fruits and/or nuts. On it you replace two meals a day with cereal, maybe throw in a piece of bread with jam or a banana etc, and use the gum method for your snacking, then you can eat whatever you want (basically, but not buffet-every-night!!) for dinner/lunch. As for your milk, you may be more satisfied and full with a full-fat whole milk, but low fat is fine too because you don't taste it as much as the cereal. But I wouldn't advise drinking non-fat on its own, because it tastes like dirty water and goes bad very quickly.

For me, I love cereal to death and could eat it forever happily. I lost weight on this one, but I started to get annoyed buying more and more cereal each day. Not really a big hassle, but I have a problem sticking to things.

  5. If all diets are annoying and you are unable to do any of the other methods

Just cut out your sugary drink intake (namely, just cut out the carbs). Fat is ok in your coffee (cream) but no sugar. Get used to bitter flavors. Drink diet soda (there are some that are good, I promise -- even a Coke drinker like me prefers Pepsi Nex (EDIT: right now it's only in Japan, sorry!), or Pepsi Max instead of my full-bodied delicious regular Coke and I never drink regular Pepsi) and tea! TEA!!! Darjeeling is awesome iced. Iced coffee doesn't need as much sugar or cream as hot. Hot tea smells awesome and can keep you awake on those long nights. Ice cold water is like a rebirth on a hot day. Just stay away from the full-sugar sodas and you're fine. Another thing -- milk makes a good snack/meal replacement. If you have no other food in your fridge or are just "kinda hungry," go for a glass of milk (but full-fat because it will fill you up and the no fat/2% variety taste like water unless you use them in your cereal).

  6. If alcohol is a problem

Drink some red wine. High in alcohol, low in sugar, classy as fuck -- always pick wine. Shots (rum, vodka, whiskey -- all low to no carb) are great too, just chase with no/low carb drinks. Hide from Smirnoff and cocktails (they're cute but so sugary, you'll just bloat as you get more drunk). If the munchies strike, well, you may have some wiggle room because you didn't OD on calories OR carbs while getting trashed, so maybe some chips or a 7-11 taquito won't kill you. But my advice here is to get as healthy of a snack as possible (fruit gummies, GUM, some nuts) instead of your delicious potatoes. Save those for a day you can remember and savor that taste.

  Final piece of advice -- work out. Go run, pick a sport, whatever. It will help you look awesome once your diet takes care of your thicker parts. And it will motivate you to eat less. You will also turn out stronger (so hello, badass points!!). And sometimes, a really sick exercise will give you some legroom to cheat a bit and eat that bag of potato chips (because I'll be honest -- on every diet I've tried, I could never resist fresh bread or a bag of potato chips). Eat whatever the hell you want on some days and try to add more healthy food to your meals no matter what diet you try (because they're delicious and make you feel not guilty).

  I don't cook, I am lazy and love carbs, but still managed to get some dieting in, so I think you can manage too.

Ugh. This video (and this song) drive me crazy. (If you want to view it as you read, click here.

What a shitty blend of familiar troupes and symbols that are begging the viewer to cry and buy this overwrought emo-adult pop crap.

Let's go through them:

breathy, winded lyrics

emotionally-charged playing of extremely simple piano chords 

emotionally-pained facial expressions while singing generic lyrics

tears

bare-bones settings reminiscent of stage/theatre as opposed to the actual locations of the events being portrayed

dripping water (for extra drama) from hands (you know, where you get feelings from and stuff)

slow motion walking away

walking into darkness

lyrics with no story, just overplayed lines about faithfulness 'wherever you go i'll follow you' blah blah

ONE SPOTLIGHT. DARKNESS. EYES LOOKING UP AT THE LIGHT. TEARS. FEELS.

standing piano in a spotlight. NO ONES THERE TO PLAY THE MUSIC!!??

old people dying (basically the last scene of The Notebook)

Christina, can you do more than stand there and touch your face?

Guy standing by the piano (but not playing it or anything), was your role  described as "look emotional and troubled as much as possible"? And oh -- "not do anything in the video at all"?

What is the little girl in the video giving up on? It seems that she's just scared of the monsters? If she's actually portraying a product of family troubles, well -- been there, seen that. Stereotypical little girl and crying and hiding under her perfect middle-class blankets and her little teddy bear that she drags as she exits the scene in her dainty nightgown with her trusty dog. Am I supposed to cry yet?

The old couple -- yeah I've seen this before too. Titanic did it, and of course, The Notebook did it, amongst countless others. Couples about to die or one nearing their death being spooned by their partner in their deathbeds. The nature of the song itself and the mood created by the video was begging me to cry and feel something for the old man, which, aware of this and also completely unmoved by its pitiful and unoriginal attempt to do so, I did not do. But that's okay, because the old man cried for me.

And now, for added impact, let the two guys at the piano just dip out without saying anything. So dramatic. Wow. I'm so moved. The song just speaks for itself right?

I feel compelled to make a doge meme.

And don't get me started on how corny and fucking uninspired the band's name is "A Great Big World" --??> I guess "It's a Small World" was too conspicuous, but it's just as pompous and unoriginal.

Avril Lavigne has stirred up quite a bit of talk with the release of her latest single's music video entitled 'Hello Kitty.' While most of the disparaging comments have been directed towards the lyrics (`basic bitch rap and a guitar riff that sounds like one of many I Love Rock and Roll ripoffs`) and the tune's pitiful attempts at a EDM/pop crossover, the video itself has been seen as a work of white privelege and an exaggeration of the Asian 'cute overload' fetishization. While I'd like to add my two cents to such claims (I don't think it's racist), I think the most appalling thing about the video is just how poorly made it is.

Many people criticize Avril for the stereotypically cute everything...  but I see it differently. As a current resident of Japan, I can attest to you that what is portrayed in the video as Japan is not that far from reality. Of course, not everyone's day to day reality, but the one for some. I mean this in the following ways: 1. Cute Culture is still Really Fucking Big And yes the Japanese use 'kawaii' all of the time to describe almost anything. What's more is that men use it freely as well. Basically, if something is appealing, it is kawaii. It's not just the white Western otaku-anime freaks or ravers who like to dress up in cute cupcake skirts bright neon colors, but pop stars and normal people here in the streets. Take for instance the artist Kyari Ryamu Pamu. Her single 'Pon Pon Pon' was an internet sensation (from what I know in the US) and was a testament to the Western perception of Japan -- nonsensical, cute, and crazy. Aftter a chorus of Western 'what-the-fuck's, very few Japanese pop videos have made it big overseas, even just to ride the wave of internet meme fame. But get this -- Kyari Ryamu Pamu is wildly popular in Japan, and her subsequent videos (and overall image) ooze over-the-top cute and nonsense, in everything from style to color to fashion to lyrics. If you ask a fan about what they think of her, guess what they will say? Kawaii!!! She's not the only one who uses 'cute', and it's definitely not just a concept limited to music videos. It's everywhere all the time -- as a matter of fact, I saw a box of Rilakkuma condoms at a department store. Sexually active individuals, and as it seems, men, buy these products. 2. Cute & Girly is Also Raving -- (and not just for girls!) Is Avril's view of Japan too cute for you? Get over it, because that's really how it is. Everyone from babies to old men and women carry the goods with their favorite characters printed on them -- My Melody, Rilakkuma, Hello Kitty, yadayada, Snoopy, Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, LINE characters and so on. Often people carry these printed items around without recognizing how strange it is in the West to be a fully grown adult and have a cute little Rilakkuma hand towel or a My Melody purse out in public. No one here cares. Cute is just how it is. And girls here are more traditionally feminine than the West if you ask me -- dresses, skirts, and sky high heels are the most common choices for daily wear, even if you're just going to the local grocery store, and if anything happens to have a character on it, no one will bat an eyelash. Do you want to wear a skirt with cupcakes on it and a pink top with My Melody gloves? Do it, no one cares. Seriously. 3. Those Fujifilm Instant Cameras are Popular As Fuh I own one myself and they come in like four stylish colors. You can buy instant photo film with plain borders or -- get this -- Hello Kitty frames, or you can buy the special edition Hello Kitty or Rilakumma version. If you use it out in public, no one will care either, or think you're childish, but instead say 'Aaaa! Kawaii!!!' when you whip it out and take a snap on your mini instant camera. Avril uses it in the video, and the only thing I have a problem with is how pathetically ingenuine and over the top her reaction is when she pulls the developed photo out. One, because it looks fake, and two, when you pull out the film, it is still white because it hasn't developed yet. 4. It's Not Racist Because There Are Asians in the Video Guess where this video was shot? Japan. Who live in Japan? Japanese. Guess what Japanese people like to eat (amongst thousands of other things)? Sushi. Guess what Japanese like to do (like other people in the world and especially in entertainment)? Dance. Again, the worst parts about this video are Avril's incredibly wooden genuinity (no one reacts like she does when they receive sushi at a restaurant). She is hugely popular in Asia and she also happens to be white with blonde hair, and has a liking for cute fluffy skirts and hearts with crossbones and neon colors (again, does anyone remember The Best Damn Thing??). But her including some aspects of Japan (in a very poorly conceived way, as I've noted -- this video's production value has got to be the lowest I've seen from any major pop star in recent years) does not make her someone exploiting her white privilege. She likes Japan, Japan loves the hell out of her, and this is what she made (a terrible gift on her part, but nonetheless something for her fans). What if she used white dancers and white stand-ins instead of the Japanese? Is that more an exercise of her white privilege -- an even worse one at that -- because she's not using any natives? She's in fucking Japan! Her fans are Japanese, the people who make sushi in Japan are Japanese, and so on. Why can't her dancers be people, why are they automatically considered props because of her whiteness and their not-whiteness? 5. She Speaks Japanese in the Video, and That's Not Racist. Her Japanese is not good, and it's exceptionally cringeworthy in the very beginning of the song (when the 'Minna saikou arigatou, ka ka ka kawaii' part has no melody accompanying it), but she is expressing a nice sentiment at the very least. This literally means, 'Everyone is the best, thank you!' Bad pronunciation aside, because she's not Japanese and definitely not very good at speaking it, she shouldn't use it? Doesn't make sense to me. Again, she did this before with her single 'Boyfriend,' creating a Japanese version (amongst many other bilingual versions), from The Best Damn Thing. God, just imagine the public's response if she actually had something with Hello Kitty on it in the video! The lyrics have literally no connection to the character named Hello Kitty and really the only connection the lyrics has to Japan is that she says 'Hello, kitty'. Would this song have been even more racist if she talked about her love of Hello Kitty instead of about sex? But really I wonder why it's a problem in the first place. I have shown this video to my Japanese friends and not one has commented on its portrayal of Japan, aside from the comments I've already noted -- that the Japanese makes their ears hurt (辛い！) and that her reactions are over the top and fake.

And let's please talk about her reactions. Her face. The sheer lack in sincerity in every gesture, dance move, and look at the camera. It makes me feel uncomfortable, and what's worse is that although I think her video says different, Avril argues on Twitter that she made the video for her (Asian//Japanese) fans. Those poor fans. As I've stated before, I'm not really into 'For the Fans' (FTF) videos like the Kings of Leon 'Use Somebody' video or Chris Daughtry's fan ballad 'Home,' but even that would have been a vast improvement over the extremely poorly made and even more poorly conceived catastrophe that is the 'Hello Kitty' "video". I put "video" in quotes because it hardly passes as something watchable.

The lip-synching is completely off at many points -- see: (00:14), (00:17), (00:32), various points throughout and again at (2:56)...

Have you seen a very popular internet article called "Chronicles of a Girl with Chronic Bitchface"? Unfortunately, Avril also suffers from this, except it really comes off as genuine. She's a seasoned pop star and has been in the lights for over 10 years now. Yet her video presence and again, sincerity, is just as convincing as Hayden Christensen's acting as Anakin Skywalker (read: sad).

Would it have killed the director of the video to not have the top of Avril's head uncomfortably grazing each frame? Is there not a single lens in your bag that fits her torso and her head at the same time? Look at (00:23). It's like she's drowning, because the bottom of the frame is cutting off her neck, so she has to awkwardly keep her head up. We don't need to see 90% of the boring background (which is fuzzy anyway, it looks like this was shot on a gloomy day in Tokyo).

Then the very next cut, at around (00:25), you can see her knees, her guitar, her torso, and almost all of her head. She's also tilted it back, making it even harder to see her face. Does anyone need to see that much of her guitar (it's also competing for some limited space)? And what's with the darkness there?? Someone forget to add a fill light?

Is there peanut butter in her mouth? These smiles look very forced.

A note: has anyone had the experience of pulling out the film of an instant camera to have it already developed within seconds? No? Me either. It takes about a minute for it to fully develop -- right when you pull it out it's completely white. So this following reaction (2:21) is fake, fake, fake. Avril, please stop.

Again, at (02:24), her head is competing for frame space:

And finally, the re-emergence of Bitchface, frame-by-frame.

Mind you, this is the last frame of the video before it goes black. She fake smiles then bitchfaces everyone before closing out her fan appreciation video. ... What?

Maybe it's not all Avril's fault. There's got to be a director who needs to have his cameras taken away, a producer who slept the entire shoot, and a music label exec who foolishly thought Avril could pull off a fan appreciation song/video, right? But no matter what, it's a sad, disappointing video in more ways than some claimed cultural appropriation scandal. Poorly made, poorly conceived, poorly shot, poorly edited, and poorly acted.

I have been thinking about this topic for quite some time and while this post will be far from as thorough as I intend it to be I feel that I should try to articulate, as I try to understand, the conditions of my environment. In other words, there are many things that really stick out at me that contrast to my American background, and I think Japan is unique from many developed countries in the way it has developed socially and mentally post World War II.

Modern Japan is most definitely a modern country. Low crime rates, healthy population, generally stable economy, and technological advances are comprised in every foreigner's image of Japan - lights, skyscrapers, high tech computers, vending machines, robots, cellphones, internet, video games, etc. And these things are great. As a resident of Japan, I can attest to all of these wonders. But I can also attest that, in terms of all things 'Modern Japan,' that these are cosmetic. Japan has changed its environment considerably over the past century to match and even rival those of developed Western countries, and advertises its continuing adherence to tradition (kimono, temples, matsuri [festivals], etc) while nurturing Japan as a world leader.

Culturally, and especially linguistically, Japan has maintained a mukasi (past) mindset. This is of course a famous characteristic of Japan and something learners of Japanese (including anyone who has read a manga or seen an anime) are well aware of. Honorific language (keigo), bowing, shoes off at the genkan, etc etc are not just a part of life here but downright essential to it. They have not changed for centuries, and there is no indication that they ever will. And I am definitely not one to say that they should; in fact, I really enjoy these parts of Japanese society and sometimes wonder why everyone doesn't do the same (especially the taking off of shoes when you enter someone's house and so on, and many school traditions...)

But I do strongly think that there are many things that should be changed. Work culture is exceptionally difficult and strict -- for many, it is their life. While a westerner reading this may say 'Ah yes, everyone (especially Americans) work all the time too! Overtime and weekends! Japan is no different!' and that's what I initially thought too. But my experience as an English teacher to these business men and women has showed me that it is not the same at all. The strictness of work culture depends on hierarchical relationships, a strongly male-dominated culture, women-as-housewives expectations, and a deep, ingrained sense of responsibility to their jobs. 

People don't just go to work -- they live at work. Some companies have dorms nearby to house employees (and they are undoubtedly tempting with rock-bottom rent charges and a work schedule that demands an a 60-hour-plus week). Many companies have sports teams and clubs, and organize things like specialized classes (for instance, the English that I teach) for their employees to spend their lunch/dinner breaks. Frequently employees and their bosses go out on nomikai, or drinking parties out at a 'bar,' and you can't say no to them -- especially if a superior asks you. Job-switching is extremely rare for many reasons, but mostly because doing so makes you start at the bottom at the new company and moving up can take years. Employees have many paid vacation days, but few take all (or even most) of the. When I ask why, the most common response is, 'When I come back from a long vacation, there will be more work for me than before, and then I'll have to work more overtime.' And overtime isn't an occasional thing, it's normal for many -- I've had many students tell me about their work day that started at 8:30am and didn't end until 8:30 - 10pm at night. Crazy, to a Western ear, but commonplace here.

Naturally this crippling type of schedule has many consequences on family life, but especially for women, job advancement and the possibility of getting a managerial ranking position anywhere is extremely hard, and usually only possible if one forgoes having a family. In Japan, for a woman, having a family and a full-time job is extremely hard. Nursery schools are uncommon and expensive, and it is a cultural expectation that mothers will drop their jobs to raise their children and then return to the workforce as an OL or similar data-entry position (if they return at all). Thus, there is a lot of pressure on men to work hard to support their family -- but even if money is not the problem, job advancement is not necessarily related to how well you do your job, it is also strongly linked to how long you have done your job and how much time you put into the company. So any man who wants to advance in his company must invest time in his work and in developing relationships with his superiors.

It is a vicious cycle that I think is the most bitter part of Japanese life. But of course, this is coming from an American. Who am I to judge this culture, this one that isn't mine?

I have become a person very interested in families, women's rights, feminism, sexism, and the entirety of gender segregation/differentiation in media and everyday life. So I am very sensitive to how these things are expressed in culture. I heavily criticize America for its sexuality and I naturally do the same for Japan. Both countries are very similar in their very outdated and culturally ingrained perceptions of how men and women should be portrayed and how they should act etc.

But to me, America has a considerable leg up in the aspect of changing these perceptions. Why?

Because Americans talk about these problems. You (Americans, and I suppose most Westerners as well) see on the internet and the news many articles and blog posts and friends posting/ranting about work problems, relationship problems, and social injustice. What we believe is so commonplace -- this open dialogue (admit it -- you've gotten into fights or lost a friend from a political debate before haven't you?) -- is simply not had here on a public platform. And it is definitely not natural for Japanese to do.

Japanese television is well-known for its boring television shows. Or really, their lack of variety. And this isn't just coming from me -- I have heard this from many Japanese. They watch more Prison Break and Game of Thrones than they do any of their own dramas or variety shows. I have watched many Japanese television shows and they generally fall into one of these categories -- variety shows, cuisine, news, shopping, 'drama.' And knowing Japanese (even to my somewhat limited extent), it is easy for me to recognize why they're so unpopular outside of the country and struggling to maintain audiences in the homeland: never, and in some cases rarely (in dramas) does any program discuss these difficult points of Japanese life. Nor is everything whitewashed -- it is simply not talked about. There is no equivalent for Oprah, Dr Phil, Maury, or Ellen.

Comedy exemplifies this contrast the most I think. Whereas in America, political and almost every topic imaginable, from the mundane to the taboo, can be and is used in comedy (Jon Stewart, South Park, stand-up like Louis C.K., It's Always Sunny, The Office, The 40-Year-Old Virgin, etc etc), Japanese comedy rarely trespasses past nonsense. Think The Three-Stooges for a modern era. Manzai (two-person comedy acts) are very popular, but never have they ever said anything remotely derogatory or as a commentary on a present societal ill, instead, they rely on situational comedy made up of unrealistic characters and impossible situations that never actually happen. Variety shows are comedic to a degree, but their humor is based on word play more than it is in the actual content. And rarely does one emerge from a Japanese comedy viewing session with food for thought -- comedy explicitly avoids any turai (harsh) type of talk.

In schools, presentations and debates that seem like no-brainers for American schoolkids are virtually non-existent. I have held debate and presentation classes with learners from middle school to salaryman who all had little to no experience with the idea at all. Many don't start to do presentations until college or at work, and they have much trouble executing basic debates.

What I believe this does is make it impossible for open discussion and thus impossible for significant progress. While I do not discount the fact that Japan has indeed changed in many ways, in terms of women's rights and family and even work, and that it is still changing, I believe that it is still very far behind, and still a very stifling, patriarchal society. Media is exceptionally unforgiving in this regard -- which I think I'll explain in a different post sometime -- and I fear that change will take another century to get to the same level as present-day America (which in a way isn't saying much either). It takes too long because they aren't encouraged to talk about these things in a public forum. If they are thought about -- and indeed they are, and yes they are discussed as well -- you surely won't hear about it on a TV show or a drama. And that's where I think the magic happens, where people can see and think and talk and share from all over the world, by TV and movies. They are so important for sharing ideas, and I find it sad that Japanese media deliberately avoids this type of communication. I think this is how they can make progress and leap, in bounds, towards a more equal and happy society (let us not forget that Japan has the highest rates of suicide of all developed countries).

I love a music video with a story. As a matter of fact, my favorite music videos, and what I believe are the best ones, are those that have some sort of narrative. Whether it be a narrative-performance style or straight up narrative, the reason why they work is because they illustrate what the song means to the band. When you listen to a song, you probably have your own narrative in your head about it -- for instance, when you hear "We Found Love" by Rihanna in the club or at a bar somewhere, you start dancing and think, perhaps, "This song makes me think I'll find love in this shity bar!" or when you hear the lyric, "It's the way you feel that I just can't deny ---" you may be thinking, "Oh my gosh I know that feel, this guy/girl makes me so happy!!!!" You think the song is happy. You think the lyrics are positive. When you watch the video, however, you see that it is quite the opposite. Rihanna's (or whoever directed the video's) interpretation of the song is completely different than what you would expect. The video follows a familiar narrative (love and drugs) but has twists, style, and energy embedded in every cut. 

Gwen Stefani's "Cool" is a good example of a lyric-to-video narrative. The song is about how she and her ex-boyfriend are now good friends, although they used to be together and had a very tumultuous relationship, and it details meeting his new girlfriend and remembering old times together. And what's in the video? Exactly what I just described. The editing is well done and well paced, and the way the story is expressed is subtle but unforgettable, and more relatable than its fairy-tale setting would make you think. In the beginning, Gwen greets her ex-boyfriend and his new fiancé at her front door and lets them in. The make small talk as they sit around a table, and the video cuts to scenes of when she and her ex were together (notably, when Gwen is a brunette -- gorgeous still). These scenes are of a simple, cute, ideal love, full of romance and a beautiful (perhaps Italian) backdrop. The memories and reminisces to their past together are shown deftly, with a cut from the scene in Gwen's house to a scene of the pair together long ago. For example, when she bumps into him, their bodies move in a motion that is similar to when they embraced long ago, which the video then cuts to briefly to show the moment, then cuts back to the parlor scene.

I think the highlight of this video is how the deterioration of the relationship is shown. It is very subtle, and does not answer any specific questions. The viewer only knows that something went wrong, something broke down, and they were no longer in love. They don't fight, there isn't a cutscene to him cheating on her or a verbal argument – simply, one day they are together, standing in an alley way, and Gwen looks at him, imploring him to hug her. He stands limply against the wall and he shakes his head, Gwen's face shows sadness (not anger), but she takes his arms and wraps them around her anyway, and she looks away from him, her eyes expressing understanding that it is over, it has changed, but she still cares.

First impression: Oh no, not another "life is tough on the road, and we love our fans you're all worth it every day blah blah" video!

Last impression: I am unmoved by yet another unoriginal "snapshot of a band"/"for the fans" video. This genre of music video is equivalent to if not worse than the exclusively performance genre. In "snapshot of a band" videos, the bands' superstar image is supposed to be watered and cozied down to pluck the heartstrings of their ordinary plebian fans.

Elements of a "FTF Video" (For the Fans):

[ ] Black & White

[ ] Tour/live performance footage

[ ] Band backstage footage

[ ] Fans freaking out with signs or in the crowd, masses of them

[ ] Sweeping city shots

[ ] Band sweating and tired

[ ] Band being like a family backstage, complete with joking and hijinks

[ ] Boarding or disembarking an aircraft

[ ] Distraught lead singer or stressed band member (some kind of reflection of their tour lifestyle)

To no one's surprise and to my disappointment (I personally really love this song and have a strong attraction to the flippy haired bassist) this video was a let down all around town. It had all the FTF video stereotypes plus more, like some hot chick and hot cars and hotel rooms.

Tour life sucks, okay okay. Every band does it. Your band is no different, Kings of Leon. Please save these cop-out tour vids for lame, B-side songs. Not a big hit or solid song with a really promising narrative! Show me your sensitivity and love of your fans and your quirkiness or whatever you wanted to show in the standard tour vid in a proper music video.