I am robbing myself blind!!/the whole "metro" thing
I originally thought that setting up multiple savings accounts/investments was a really good idea, because I set it up so that money from my paycheck would go directly into those rather than my checking account, where it would promptly go towards dinners out/booze/shoes/boutique items. I guess it was a rare moment of clarity on my part, where I actually thought about the long-term consequences of my actions and pre-empted my own bad habits.
Um, what was I thinking?
Any economist could tell you that the perception of wealth is as important an indicator of spending vs. saving habits then actual wealth. Well, why doesn't it work for me? Before setting up these accounts, I would always have several thousand dollars in my account, taunting me, thus prompting various splurges. I would never get close to approaching the big red line, or even dwindling my assets, as it were. Now all of my first paycheck goes towards my rent and bills, and more than half of my second goes into savings, leaving me with about 1/4 of my whole paycheck (after taxes) every month of disposable income. That sounds like a lot, but with my "materialistic" side I end up screwed. I still spend the same amount, but now it means that I end up living paycheck to paycheck, although not really, because I have all this money I put away. The thing is, I think I spend more since I know that everything in my checking account is there for me to play with, rather than thinking that I should be prudent because everything in that paycheck represents all that I have.
I think it's reflective of a (well, probably several) larger issue: bad habits, and how to break them. I have never handled this, depsite several readings of Bernstein Bears and the Bad Habit when I was small. In order to break a bad habit, you have to have something with which to replace it, correct? It's not that I don't have hobbies that fulfill me, or I guess it is that. Well, how does one develop fulfilling hobbies? Why does it smell like something's burning? My coworker's candle? Why is her voice so fucking grating? I digress.
An even larger issue, I suppose, is that there are many people colluding to make you not save, resulting in America's saving rates being much, much lower than other industrialized (rich) nations. Beyond advertising and branding everywhere you look, which is notriously tempting in a city with shops everywhere, not to mention "convenience costs" such as eating out instead of in, there are credit card companies, always trying their damndest to make sure you don't pay off your whole bill. There are evil loan consolidation companies trying to convince me that paying less every month for 20 years will somehow cost me less than paying them off in 10 years, at a slightly higher rate, and shows like CBS news trying to convince you that if you don't consolidate now you're screwed! (Particularly bitter, since everyone keeps telling me consolidating is better, even though I've done the math and know that it will cost me more in the end.) There are housing markets driving up housing costs, creating a need to live in Adams Morgan and pay an exorbitant price because, well, that's what you do in the city. It's sad that with a pretty good income for a young single person, I have to consciously work to stay debt free and still come out with substantial savings, let alone people with much lower incomes and less access to information about saving.
Wanted to comment on this:
(from Salon)
"I love to dance. I love my body, and I love to take my clothes off." -- Brian, 28, of VH1's "Strip Search" explaining his life's passions
This guy's a freak, right? Wrong. Let's call him a smoothie, the modern version of a pretty boy, a waxed-chested breed that's far more prevalent and far more high-maintenance than those dabbling urban metrosexuals. The smoothie transcends the scope of "Queer Eye" and is centered not in the big cities, but in the small towns where decades of boy bands and hair products and Chess King fashions have filtered into the cultural groundwater, until most young men have a grasp of personal hygiene, style and flamboyant behavior that the older, crustier and less hygienic among us can hardly fathom.
If the heavily primped contestants of VH1's "Strip Search" seem to constitute a particularly skewed sample, take a gander at MTV or the WB or other young channels, where the men not only look uniformly cleaner than they have since the '50s, but their bodies are totally hairless, their hair boasts triple-processed highlights, and their behavior wavers between prancing, posturing, exhibitionism and Madonna-style outbursts. Next, check out VH1's "Kept," where a gaggle of smoothies competes very sincerely and fiercely for the chance to become Jerry Hall's arm candy, enjoying her wealthy and fabulous lifestyle while presumably accompanying her to events, following her orders, and servicing her engine in exchange.
If that doesn't convince you, flip over to "Blow Out," where each week we witness a stiffly gelled yet demonstrably straight hairstylist don the James Dean white-T-and-jeans look that was once a gay club boy staple, start catfights with business partners and stylists in his salons, then retreat to therapy to cry his eyes out while the cameras roll. Or, check out Wes of "The Real World: Austin," whose audition tape included footage of him dancing in a G-string, and a confession that he's always had a secret dream of becoming a male stripper. And if these examples don't convince you that a sea change in the definition of masculinity is reaching the masses and not just the cloistered urban elites, look around your average college campus. These kids keep themselves so trimmed and ironed and clean and buff, even sprawling state campuses have the preening, swaggery feel of a huge outdoor gay nightclub.
I have often taken issue with Salon's portrayal of the most elite, generally white Americans and their "culture"/"issues" as being representative of the country, or at the very least, representative of the kinds of issues their readership considers important and worthy of reading about. For instance, that stupid article about a white, upper class woman feeling jealous of her domestic worker, for which they got HELL from readers, and rightfully so. Not that it's not valid for the woman to feel jealous, but if she's going to write about it for Salon, maybe next time she can include some analysis of what it means to be in that position of power and participate in this form of exploitation? At the very least...
Anyway, back to the "smoothie" article. I love how they say, "well, not that a few people competing on reality shows are representative of a whole generation of males" and then go on to say, "well, I looked around some college campuses and therefore, my assumption is accurate."
This raises a few questions in my mind:
1.) Isnt it kind of backwards to observe something on TV and then suggest that this behavior is an indication of change already wrought in society? TV creates trends, and then the media chooses which "phenomena" to label as such, which then get recreated once stores in major malls start making the necessary goods to participate in them. So, my question is, why is she acting like TV is just an innocent reflection of the country?
2.) Why is everyone so obsessed with this whole "metro" thing? I mean, what substantive cultural difference does men shaving their chests indicate, other than new markets for clothing designers? What proportion of the population is this really affecting? I mean, I guess it's subverting dominant constructions of gender, but only in that it's now forcing men to spend more money on their appearance, thus underlining the vapid, materialistic current in pop culture, which is alive and well. I thin to really tweak any notion of gender, you'd have to do so in such a way that really questions constructions of gender to begin with, and this whole "metro" thing is just reinforcing them by saying "men waxing body hair is mirroring women's behavior and therefore radical that men are doing it".
3.) Whoever thought that chest hair was bad, anyway? I'll be damned if I ever sleep with a hairless man. EW.
Um, what was I thinking?
Any economist could tell you that the perception of wealth is as important an indicator of spending vs. saving habits then actual wealth. Well, why doesn't it work for me? Before setting up these accounts, I would always have several thousand dollars in my account, taunting me, thus prompting various splurges. I would never get close to approaching the big red line, or even dwindling my assets, as it were. Now all of my first paycheck goes towards my rent and bills, and more than half of my second goes into savings, leaving me with about 1/4 of my whole paycheck (after taxes) every month of disposable income. That sounds like a lot, but with my "materialistic" side I end up screwed. I still spend the same amount, but now it means that I end up living paycheck to paycheck, although not really, because I have all this money I put away. The thing is, I think I spend more since I know that everything in my checking account is there for me to play with, rather than thinking that I should be prudent because everything in that paycheck represents all that I have.
I think it's reflective of a (well, probably several) larger issue: bad habits, and how to break them. I have never handled this, depsite several readings of Bernstein Bears and the Bad Habit when I was small. In order to break a bad habit, you have to have something with which to replace it, correct? It's not that I don't have hobbies that fulfill me, or I guess it is that. Well, how does one develop fulfilling hobbies? Why does it smell like something's burning? My coworker's candle? Why is her voice so fucking grating? I digress.
An even larger issue, I suppose, is that there are many people colluding to make you not save, resulting in America's saving rates being much, much lower than other industrialized (rich) nations. Beyond advertising and branding everywhere you look, which is notriously tempting in a city with shops everywhere, not to mention "convenience costs" such as eating out instead of in, there are credit card companies, always trying their damndest to make sure you don't pay off your whole bill. There are evil loan consolidation companies trying to convince me that paying less every month for 20 years will somehow cost me less than paying them off in 10 years, at a slightly higher rate, and shows like CBS news trying to convince you that if you don't consolidate now you're screwed! (Particularly bitter, since everyone keeps telling me consolidating is better, even though I've done the math and know that it will cost me more in the end.) There are housing markets driving up housing costs, creating a need to live in Adams Morgan and pay an exorbitant price because, well, that's what you do in the city. It's sad that with a pretty good income for a young single person, I have to consciously work to stay debt free and still come out with substantial savings, let alone people with much lower incomes and less access to information about saving.
Wanted to comment on this:
(from Salon)
"I love to dance. I love my body, and I love to take my clothes off." -- Brian, 28, of VH1's "Strip Search" explaining his life's passions
This guy's a freak, right? Wrong. Let's call him a smoothie, the modern version of a pretty boy, a waxed-chested breed that's far more prevalent and far more high-maintenance than those dabbling urban metrosexuals. The smoothie transcends the scope of "Queer Eye" and is centered not in the big cities, but in the small towns where decades of boy bands and hair products and Chess King fashions have filtered into the cultural groundwater, until most young men have a grasp of personal hygiene, style and flamboyant behavior that the older, crustier and less hygienic among us can hardly fathom.
If the heavily primped contestants of VH1's "Strip Search" seem to constitute a particularly skewed sample, take a gander at MTV or the WB or other young channels, where the men not only look uniformly cleaner than they have since the '50s, but their bodies are totally hairless, their hair boasts triple-processed highlights, and their behavior wavers between prancing, posturing, exhibitionism and Madonna-style outbursts. Next, check out VH1's "Kept," where a gaggle of smoothies competes very sincerely and fiercely for the chance to become Jerry Hall's arm candy, enjoying her wealthy and fabulous lifestyle while presumably accompanying her to events, following her orders, and servicing her engine in exchange.
If that doesn't convince you, flip over to "Blow Out," where each week we witness a stiffly gelled yet demonstrably straight hairstylist don the James Dean white-T-and-jeans look that was once a gay club boy staple, start catfights with business partners and stylists in his salons, then retreat to therapy to cry his eyes out while the cameras roll. Or, check out Wes of "The Real World: Austin," whose audition tape included footage of him dancing in a G-string, and a confession that he's always had a secret dream of becoming a male stripper. And if these examples don't convince you that a sea change in the definition of masculinity is reaching the masses and not just the cloistered urban elites, look around your average college campus. These kids keep themselves so trimmed and ironed and clean and buff, even sprawling state campuses have the preening, swaggery feel of a huge outdoor gay nightclub.
I have often taken issue with Salon's portrayal of the most elite, generally white Americans and their "culture"/"issues" as being representative of the country, or at the very least, representative of the kinds of issues their readership considers important and worthy of reading about. For instance, that stupid article about a white, upper class woman feeling jealous of her domestic worker, for which they got HELL from readers, and rightfully so. Not that it's not valid for the woman to feel jealous, but if she's going to write about it for Salon, maybe next time she can include some analysis of what it means to be in that position of power and participate in this form of exploitation? At the very least...
Anyway, back to the "smoothie" article. I love how they say, "well, not that a few people competing on reality shows are representative of a whole generation of males" and then go on to say, "well, I looked around some college campuses and therefore, my assumption is accurate."
This raises a few questions in my mind:
1.) Isnt it kind of backwards to observe something on TV and then suggest that this behavior is an indication of change already wrought in society? TV creates trends, and then the media chooses which "phenomena" to label as such, which then get recreated once stores in major malls start making the necessary goods to participate in them. So, my question is, why is she acting like TV is just an innocent reflection of the country?
2.) Why is everyone so obsessed with this whole "metro" thing? I mean, what substantive cultural difference does men shaving their chests indicate, other than new markets for clothing designers? What proportion of the population is this really affecting? I mean, I guess it's subverting dominant constructions of gender, but only in that it's now forcing men to spend more money on their appearance, thus underlining the vapid, materialistic current in pop culture, which is alive and well. I thin to really tweak any notion of gender, you'd have to do so in such a way that really questions constructions of gender to begin with, and this whole "metro" thing is just reinforcing them by saying "men waxing body hair is mirroring women's behavior and therefore radical that men are doing it".
3.) Whoever thought that chest hair was bad, anyway? I'll be damned if I ever sleep with a hairless man. EW.
posted by Brynne at 2:24 PM
2 Comments:
I guess "damned" is pretty strong. And now that I think about it, naturally hairless men aren't gross, I just prefer some chest hair, and if you have it, why wax it? You'd just get stubble eventually. Hairy men, be proud of your hairiness! Uncircumcised men, be proud of your beautiful penises! Okay, that's a little off topic...I'll miss you too, have fun!!!
I tried the little blue pills and experienced a stuffed up nose and blue halo in my vision that disrupted my whole evening, yeah I got an erection but I could not breath thru my nose, It left me frustrated. I have since tried many popular pills as seen on TV, and took them as directed for months, and none of them worked at all, so I gave Vicerexlabs a try and wow was I amazed, not only did I get an erection in 20 minutes as claimed, but I also got aroused again seeing women and had sexual energy and desire and was able to have a controlled erection for days. If you are looking for help with penis enhancement then you should check out Vicerexlabs.
Post a Comment
<< Home