Teaching Old Dogs New Tricks

How do these sayings get started? Old wive's tales? Something someone picked up along the way? There are tons of them out there. Don't pop your knuckles because you will have arthritus? Wrong. If anything it's good for your knuckles because it relieves pressure. Going out in the rain will make you sick? Wrong, it will make you cold. Bacteria will make you sick. Old dogs can't learn new tricks? Again, not entirely true. I don't think they're any easier teach, but not learning at all? That's not true.

How do I know this? Well, I can gladly say that recently I taught an old dog a new trick. Not exactly by myself, it was a cooperative effort, but my girlfriend and I certainly taught her dog a new trick.

Her American bulldog mix, Missy, was always the WORST dog to take on a walk. She would pull the leash, run out into traffic, chase cars and people; you name it, she would do it. She wouldn't listen either; in fact, it seemed entirely the opposite. It was almost like she would do things just because you didn't want her to. After watching an episode of The Dog Whisperer, however, we found out how to make her walk correctly. My girlfriend would hold her leash and I would walk in front of her with a stick. Every time she would try to pull the leash or run away I would smack her with the stick. Not hard, just enough to let her know that she shouldn't pull the leash or run away. She should stay right beside us while she walks.

Amazing! Of all dogs, this is the one I would think could never learn any new tricks. Besides being 10+ years old, she isn't exactly the smartest dog in the world, but she did it. We walked for almost half a mile with Missy right beside, me in front with a stick letting her know what her position was in the pack. Old dogs can't learn new tricks.... wrong.

Roommates

At what point does a person decide that they don't want to live with roommates anymore? I realize that a lot of people don't like to live by themselves, and I also realize that some people enjoy the companionship. My question, however, revolves around a progression in life: grow up, become liberated from parents, get a place of your own, and live apart for your parents. Is there a point when you finally decide that you need to live on your own?

Is it always ok to keep looking for a roommate to stay with? I'm not trying to disparage the idea of living with roommates, I know it's a good idea economically, but is having a roommate something that's eventually "outgrown"? Living with roommates has always seemed, to me, that it goes along with not having any money; getting a roommate was a way of living without much money.

I guess I'm looking at it wrong; maybe a roommate is someone's way of getting out of not having companionship. Does there come a point when having a roommate is no longer feasible? Is it ok to be 40, single, and living with a roommate? The whole idea just seems a little out of order to me... but then again I've never had a problem living or staying by myself and I don't know what it would be like to not be comfortable living that way.

What's Old is New

For some reason, everyone is apt to believe that the newest thing is always the best thing. Whether it be electronics, automotive, or even things around the home, it's obvious that marketing and businesses are looking to sell the next best thing in order to stay afloat. I recently discovered, however, that the newest may not always be the best.

Recently, I came to the point where I'd had enough of shaving. It's never comfortable, it's expensive, and most of the time it downright hurts! Because of this I've always looked at shaving as a necessary evil; do it and get it over with. TV commercials love to advertise the newest advance in shaving technology, and I always figured that the newest evolution would undoubtedly be the best.

While rummaging through some of my Grandfather's possessions, however, I discovered an old razor (not unlike the one seen above). After going to Youtube to see how to use it (yes, I'm that young), I purchased some shaving soap and a brush, and I decided to give it a try.

Long story short, I never would have believed that something from so long ago could out-perform even the newest technology. I've had a consistently better shave with that razor than with any other type I've used. It feels better, smells better, doesn't hurt after I'm done, and besides all of that, the blades are only $0.20 apiece! I'm constantly kicking myself for suffering through shaving all these years when there was something so much better out there and within my grasp.

I guess it goes to show that what's new isn't automatically better, and perhaps we should look to something from the past when dissatisfied with something from our present.

Freedom Isn't Free?

I don't know if it's merely an American thing, something tells me that it probably is, but I hear the word "freedom" bandied around a lot. Whether it's someone talking about their rights as an American/human being/whatever or part of a bumper-sticker slogan on someone's car, it seems like mention of "freedom" is everywhere. Although I'm not very old, I feel like it's one of those things that's been posited as a central part of American life for a long time. No doubt the "War on Terror" also has a lot to do with America's general conception of freedom; there's nothing like a war against someone who doesn't share the same values as you do to make you cherish the ones you have and put them above the ones of other people. I think many people, however, have a misguided, or perhaps ignorant, notion of the different kinds of "freedom."

"Freedom" for most Americans, or so it would seem, is about being able to do whatever you want, whenever you want. It's about a general lack of being told what to do and not to do; generally the first thing spouted off as a hallmark of "freedom" is the notion of freedom of speech, religion, etc. "Freedom" is an individual's right to have what they want, go where they want, and do what they want without the intervention of another party. The things that our constitution allows for us to have make up the general consensus of most people's conception of "freedom," and it never enters anyone's mind that "freedom" could perhaps also have other meanings.

For me, and probably more people if they would stop to think about it, there are actually two different kinds of "freedom." There's the aforementioned type, freedom to do or have, but then there's also a freedom from something. The idea that freedom is not only the ability to do, but also the ability to be separate from, is something that many American's fail to recognize. It is on this point, therefore, that most American's are not free at all; in the sense of this "negative freedom," freedom from, Americans are some of the most oppressed people in the world.

Although we may have infinitely many opportunities for things, they all seem to fall in the same patterns or categories. We can do what we want and buy what we want, but it all falls within the same 20th-21st century framework. We are bound to grow up, get an education, get married, get a job, go to work, make money, and buy things to live. That's it. Rinse and repeat. Vacations, travel, time-off, etc., the things that remove us from our day-to-day, are only small reprieves within the overall picture. Americans are bound to this circle of doing things, and there is little hope to separate ourselves. Even a choice to liberate oneself from this cycle is never fully realized; to live and be a part of 21st century America one must follow this formula or else become an outcast. And although many Americans would consider other cultures to be "oppressed" or "backwards," on a further glance it would seem that America is not as liberated as one would at first believe.

So "freedom," or what I would consider the normal American notion of it, is actually a bit more complicated than many would believe. It's nothing more than naiveté, or even vanity, to believe that America is a pillar of "freedom" in an oppressed world.

The Value of a Conversation

With so much time being spent on indirect communication methods, cell-phone, text, computer, etc., I think it's easy for us to forget the pleasure and fulfillment that a face-to-face conversation with another human being offers. I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that most of our communication is based on utility; everything we talk about is for some reason. Every online post is to some end, every phone call is for a meeting, every text is directions, and it's easy to get lost in the sea of communication possibilities.

I think it's important for everyone to stop and talk to someone about anything, or nothing for that matter. Just make sure that the interaction is face-to-face. There's more to talking to another person than just communicating ideas back and forth. Interaction with another living, breathing human is about a shared experience; thoughts, ideas, feelings, emotions, all the things that can't be translated as easily over electronic communication, but are nonetheless abundant when talking face-to-face, are a part of the fulfillment that a conversation gives. Too often we're concerned with getting our ideas across to another person in the most efficient and timely way that we forget to stop and enjoy the company of others around us.

So, with that being said, I think everyone should make it a priority to have a face-to-face conversation with another person as often as they can. Preferably it should be someone who's company you enjoy, no one likes being around someone that can't stand, and take time to think about the emotions and feelings that are conveyed in a conversation about nothing in particular. I think it's a lost art, that of having a conversation about nothing, and I think it's something that we miss out on all too often.

Advertising on the Down Low

Sometimes, when I stop and think about what I actually buy, I'm amazed at how effective advertising is for products. If I really stop and think about why I buy a certain brand of some product, especially when buying something for the first time or trying something new, it seems that I don't have any other reason except "I want to try this." It would seem altogether normal at a cursory glance, but when giving it some more thought it seems that there are other reasons for my product selection that I'm not even aware of.

Case in point: I needed to buy some deodorant the other day, and I decided to try something new. I looked through the different types and kinds of deodorant, there must be thousands, and finally settled upon a new type of Old Spice. After leaving the store, I began to question why I really chose that brand out of all the others. I certainly liked the way it smelled, but there were tons of other brands that smelled just as good. It had an attractive packaging, but then again, every one had some type of attractive package. The only reason I could come up with, finally, was that the Old Spice seemed more attractive because of the increased amount of Old Spice commercials on television.

I know it sounds a little far-fetched, but hear me out.

In my part of the world, southwest Florida, Old Spice commercials are played all the time. You probably know the ones I'm talking about; your man could smell like a man, me, on a horse, with tickets and pearls, etc. etc. - it's a fairly common commercial. Because of this, however, it's really the only commercial that I think of when I see deodorant, and when looking through the many brands it seemed that the Old Spice was instantly familiar, even though I only had exposure through television advertising. Something that I had never even seen in real life, only on television, was influencing my choices without my knowledge. Weird, huh?

I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying anything, not Old Spice or anything else. I just find it interesting that I could be partial to one thing over another, in this case many others, simply because I had seen it many times before and had taken notice. It's just a little scary how much we are influenced by things that we often take for granted.

Think about it the next time you buy one thing over another without any other reason than "it looks familiar."

Inception

It's been a long time since I've seen a movie that's been good enough to talk about, let alone one that was interesting enough to write about. A few weeks ago, however, I saw "Inception", and it happens to be one of those movies that's good enough to say something about.

The story, settings, action, and effects of the movie are all excellent; the movie itself is very entertaining to watch. It is a movie that takes some thought and insight to really grasp the concepts and details that went into its making, but once everything comes to light it's not a difficult movie to enjoy at all. It's a few parts exploding Bruckheimer, a little Doug Liman, and even a dash of Tony Gilroy (a la Michael Clayton). With all this going for it, though, the part I found most intriguing was the movie's ability to replicate the feeling of a dream.

Without giving away too much of the story, I'll say the movie is about people that go inside others' dreams in order to steal/plant secrets/ideas. The entire movie revolves around a group of people being conscious within various dream worlds. This aspect, that of taking part in a dream, is where the movie recreates the feeling of a dream. When all is said and done, the dream and movie finally over, I got those same feelings that I do when waking from a particularly intense dream: is this real or am I still dreaming? Was it all just a dream? Am I finally awake?

The ability of the movie to recreate something so complicated and insightful as a dream is what sets it apart from others in my opinion, and it's this part of the film that makes it great.

Acceptable?

Why is it that Christianity is the only acceptable religion in the United States? It seems that any other religious belief is completely and totally ostracized from the public view. Regardless of what your personal beliefs are, in a society that bases a huge amount of its self-worth on ideals of "freedom," religious or otherwise, does anyone honestly think that a public affirmation of faith that is different from our western Christian one would be as readily accepted?

Case in point, while attending a graduation the other day I came across something like this. The final speaker of the night, while thanking those around her, gave a final and thoughtful thanks to "God." It struck me as weird that no one seemed to think that her statements were unacceptable, and I even heard some "amens" through the crowd. Obviously she was talking about the Christian God, I hardly doubt she was referencing the "God of the Philosophers," a sort of abstract notion of a religious being, and it made me wonder whether or not her statements would have been as readily accepted if she would have referenced another religious view point. If someone would have said "praise be to Allah" I think there would have been some discontent, at the least, and maybe even a downright upheaval.

I'm not promoting any religion over another, nor am I trying to be some kind of cool non-religious person. I do think that religion does, and probably should, play a meaningful role in everyone's life. What I am saying, however, is that in a society that's making an attempt to be as non-judgmental as possible, which I think is the overwhelming majority despite "Tea Party" idiots, should one religious preference be more acceptable than any other?

Refreshing!

I saw something the other day on an info-mercial, for "Orgreenic" cookware (don't ask), and it really made me think. Pretty much every commercial that comes to mind, when portraying cooking, or cleaning, or any other household chore, usually chooses to show a woman doing all the work. Women are usually the "homemakers," they are the ones "taking care of everything" around the house and involving the children, and it's very rare that the man of the house is shown in this role. Men are usually shown coming home wearing a suit and a loosened tie, showing their hard day at work as bread-winners.

In the info-mercial there was a testimonial being given by someone that was pleased with their purchase of the product. The person was raving about how the product made cooking easier, cleaner, blah, blah, blah. The interesting thing, however, was that the person was a man. He was gawking over the fact that the cookware helped him to "cook healthier for his three kids," and he was raving about how the cookware made his "job" easier. His JOB! There was even a video of the man cooking and serving dinner to his kids while the wife was hanging out in the background watching. Could it be possible that the man was a stay-at-home dad?

I think it really takes something like this to show how much of a role patriarchal assumptions still play in today's world. Even with the status of women being raised higher than it has ever been, why is it that it's still uncommon, and even down-right weird, to see a man shown as the stay-at-home parent? Is it still so unbelievable that the woman has left the kitchen? This makes me wonder how long it will be before it's no longer "weird" to see more dad's fulfilling stay-at-home roles while their wives are out working.

Heidegger was Right

Sitting on my couch typing this, as well as watching television and listening to my Zune (iPods are for losers), I can't help but think about Heidegger's ideas about technology. Inside Being and Time, an awesome book you should read that no one really understands, Heidegger talks about how technology makes its presence felt in our "average everydayness." He explains that being surrounded by so much technology allows us to completely absorb ourselves in technology so that we won't be preoccupied with the more important things in life, namely our own existential death. For Heidegger, the ultimate for our existence was the realization of its breakdown; we are nothing more than "thrown projection," beings that think about our own possibilities while being part of a social situation, and because of this our "own-most possibility" is to realize this nothingness. This realization is scary, and because of it we run from it towards something safe and familiar.

Whether or not you buy into any of this, my feelings are that most people won't, it seems that we do just this in our everyday dealings with things. How many people have watched television and surfed on the web at the same time? Who reads an e-book on their iPad while looking at pictures, listening to music, and surfing the web? Whether or not you buy into Heidegger's notions of the self is irrelevant; it's easy to see that the introduction and dissemination of technology within society has caused fundamental changes in how we interact with the world. Be it an unwillingness to confront ourselves, or just a need to be "up-to-date" with the world, it seems that technology is becoming eerily prevalent in our lives. Even more eerie, however, may be the prediction that technology would become so prominent by a man writing over eighty years ago.

Intro

This blog is going to be an attempt to garner some sort of readership by provoking interesting thought and insight among readers. I'll make no attempt to exercise specific wit or humor within it; that's not to say that the attempt will never be made. It's merely a forum for discussion and analysis of what I think are pressing assumptions and beliefs within society that deserve an eye turned towards them, something I think feminist theory does exceedingly well, hence the title of the blog. I intend to take a look at these assumptions and provide my own insights, bolstered by the thoughts and works of greater minds from time to time, in an attempt to hone my writing skills while also providing the aforementioned impetus for thought and discussion.

Failure of my intentions may be unavoidable, but "Qui audet adipiscitur" still prevails.