RULES FOR ADOLESCENTS (AND THOSE ETERNALLY YOUNG) - 1st INSTALLMENT

Stairways and escalators are for moving upwards or moving downwards. (The operative term being moving.) They are not places where you may stop and wonder what exactly you should do next for a few minutes - there really are only two choices: get moving or get out of everyone's way. Nor are these appropriate places to stop and have a chat with your best friends about plans for the evening ahead. You're already hanging out at the mall -wasn't that your plan?

There used to be a quaint rule in libraries about maintaining an atmosphere of quiet studiousness. Now most libraries are a-chatter with teenagers vocally doing their homework, or just treating the library as an extension of the mall (which it sometimes actually is). If you wish to read or study in peace or quiet, there are a limited number of isolation booths available, which essentially means you're being made to feel like an antisocial freak. I yearn for a place I can go where silence is valued and nurtured.

Mostly for boys: Nobody on this bus except you and your buddies cares how wasted you were last night. Nobody thinks its cool except yourselves, and that creepy middle-aged drunkard/pothead in the back seat who cackles at everything you say. Nobody wants to listen to you share druglore with each other. Nobody thinks that when you say "fuck" eighteen times in thirty seconds and "yo" at the beginning of every sentence that you have established yourself as being at the pinnacle of Mount Stud. It would be pleasant to hear you say something once in a while that indicates that you might have a few brain cells that haven't been poisoned with testosterone and cannabis.

Mostly for girls: Sometime I'd like to meet that girl you're always complaining about, the one who lies, the one who is worthless, the one who does such evil things, the one you all should exclude from your special little clique, because you all know just what she's like. Oddly, she never seems to be one of you... or is she?

DEAL OR NO DEAL

My life's course has been placid in these past few weeks, my garden of gripes not requiring much in the way of weeding. Then yesterday I helped out at a yard sale held at my parish church, and one little, noxious weed did begin to sprout.

Due to inclement weather the sale was held indoors, in the church space proper and thus would more accurately have been labelled a rummage sale. The pews were rearranged to display the wares and one despaired of getting everything back to normal. If you've ever been to one of these events - there was a lot of junk.

I was one of the people taking cash first for the books, then for the lamps. Towards the end of the day (the sale only ran from 9 until 1:30) we announced that people could fill a bag for $5, which made things go faster. That, of course, did not apply to the lamps, which would not fit into the bags provided. I had been instructed to haggle to a certain point. But.

One woman was willing to take a floor lamp for $5 rather than the $20 marked. That was fair enough, because as I showed her, the cord was missing and it was only useful if she knew how to fix it. There were also two table lamps marked at $5 each, which I allowed to be argued down to $2; there was nothing wrong with them, except they did not have shades. Well, how about $1 each, she suggested. After all - no shades. At that point I stuck to my guns and insisted on $2 each or nothing. And she walked away with the floor lamp, making an offhand remark that implied I was stupid not to sell her the other two.

Actually it struck me that however socially acceptable haggling is becoming, however fun it might be to a certain degree, it is extremely boorish to do so at a charity fundraiser which is already offering goods at dirt cheap prices. If you don't care a fig about the charity in question, so what? It is still people attempting to to some good in the world and you are diminishing their power to do so with your petty pennypinching. The more I think about this, this is a serious moral issue. The acceptability of haggling encourages viciousness and deceit on both sides - sellers overpricing goods because they know buyers will deliberately undervalue them.

The leftover goods at the end of the day went in three directions - some to Goodwill; some to another church which will distribute directly to needy people in their parish; and the rest to the dump. If Madame is upset that she did not get the steal that she wanted, Madame is welcome to rummage through the last destination.

QUEER AS FOLK COGNITIVE DISSONANCE #5

Workplace discrimination? Early in Season Two, Ted gets fired from his boring accounting job after being caught by his boss masturbating at his desk. Actually, he wasn't masturbating - he was viewing a gay sex video and was startled into accidentally spilling liquid into his lap when his boss arrived. But all Ted's co-workers had been watching sex videos as well, and they weren't fired - obviously, Ted thinks, because they are straight. It's a clear case of discrimination!


This must be some workplace! At one point in the day the entire (all-male) accounting department is simultaneously viewing sex videos, in full screen, in an open-concept office where privacy is not assured. Apparently the IT department hasn't noticed the sharp spike in internet usage during some times of the day, nor what sites are being visited. Apparently the managers have never thought of installing filters preventing access to sex sites. But they do have fairly standard policies about inappropriate use of company equipment and inappropriate work behavior, and too bad for Ted, he was caught violating them.


In real life, Ted might talk to his legal advisor who might or might not tell him he had grounds for wrongful dismissal; but in all likelihood, he would not be encouraged to consider it to be flagrantly anti-gay discrimination (as Melanie tells him). I am sure that tightass Mr. Worcshafter would be just as likely to dump any other employee caught engaging in workplace misconduct. (Although it seems he's very near-sighted.)


And the point of this? The writers might have contented themselves with writing a bawdy little satire of how Ted is fired from his job for viewing porn, but turns the tables by creating a new job for himself as a producer of same. There was no need to try to shoehorn in another dubious moral.

PUBLIC CELL PHONE USERS - EVIL OR SIMPLY MALADJUSTED? (2)

Reader, I kicked him.

One of the most unforgivable things you can do in a movie theatre (and there are many such things) is to use the back of the seat in front of you as a footrest, especially if you are the sort who uses your feet to express emotion. I will tell you two stories featuring this grievous error, and then a third.

I had gone to see Kiss Me, Guido, a gay version of The Odd Couple with "Felix" being a gay actor who needs a roommate and "Oscar" a straight Italian who needs a room. I didn't find it terribly funny, but perhaps this was because every time the audience laughed I felt a dreadful pummelling against my back. It served as a form of Pavlovian conditioning - I did not have the slightest urge to laugh after the first few times. A more confrontational sort of person would have turned around after the second or third bout and let the boor have it, verbally. Sadly, I am not that sort of person, and as there were no empty seats in the theatre, I endured this assault for the length of the movie, simmering with rage. As the credits were rolling, I turned around, hoping to catch a glimpse of my assailant, and maybe give him a Hard Look which he could not misunderstand. I had envisioned him as a pimply eighteen or nineteen years old. Not so, he was a bearded forty going on fifty-three. WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU? I thought; but did not say. (Remember - not confrontational.)

On another occasion I had gone to play by Carol Shields, called Thirteen Hands. This was about a group of women whose entire social life (independent of their husbands) was playing bridge every Tuesday night for years. But still, their lives were just as rich and meaningful as anyone else's, don't you know? This was one of those plays that brings out my innermost peevishness. I disliked the fact that the play jumped back and forth in time with the same actors playing different roles. Who are they supposed to be now? I disliked the fact that the actors had decided to treat this dreary pap as a comedy by milking the most modest of Ms. Shield's wryly witty lines as if they were performing Wayne & Schuster at their most guffaw-inducing (which would be circa 1958). (Too many Canadian actors appear to have attended the W&S School of Shameless Mugging.) But I especially disliked the fact that the rest of the audience appeared to be enjoying themselves immensely.

Especially this one man, one row and a few seats away from me. He found Ms. Shields' work to be a laugh-riot, and yes, as you've guessed, he was a seat-kicker. The woman whose seat he was kicking had more gumption than I would have had and turned around and let him have it. I felt vindicated. Though I still hated the play.

Which brings me to this. The other week, I'd gone to see Wall-E, the day after it opened. You who have seen this latest gem from Pixar know that there is a touching moment towards the end of it that requires absolute silence on the part of the audience (except for the occasional sniffle) in order to be fully appreciated. Absolute silence! Not, as in this case, punctuated by an obstrusive cellphone ring. It was coming from the seat immediately in front of me.

At first, I thought this was actually a sound effect from the movie. Then the truth dawned on me. Please shut it off! I, and (I am confident), virtually all of the rest of the audience were thinking. But no, he ANSWERED it! Worse, he began to conduct a CONVERSATION! Worse, he was with someone, who was not shushing him or otherwise attempting to stop him!

I thought, What can I do to get him to shut up? I could kick the back of his seat until he stops. But no - that would be low. I must be civilized. I must not descend to his level.

However, the conversation continued. So, I abandoned all my scrupulous moral principles and gave him one solid kick -

He got the point - almost. He stood up, walked away, and continued his conversation in the aisle. What's the use? I sigh.

PUBLIC CELL PHONE USERS - EVIL OR SIMPLY MALADJUSTED? (1)

This morning on the bus I noticed that someone had scrawled on the back of one of the seat words to this effect: "Look at the white sheet behind u. Rule #3: No cell phone use..." Apparently I'm not the only one peeved at the way people behave with cellphones. I regret to say, though, that my fellow bepeeved one placed an interpretation on Rule #3 that is not strictly warranted by its wording, if the rules posted on the buses correspond to the rules posted on the web. It actually reads: "No playing of any musical instrument, radio, transmitting or receiving device, tape
recorder or similar device, unless earphones are used."

Arguably, that does include cellphones, which are certainly transmitting or receiving devices, and arguably function as a musical instrument with their ever so merry and droll ringtones. And I have frequently heard cellphone users utter profanity, which breaks Rule #13. Unfortunately, I smell a loophole in the word "earphones".

How about another rule? "It is unlawful to annoy your fellow passengers in whatsoever way with whatsoever electronic device you bear upon your person. Two separate complaints from passengers will be deemed sufficient to have you ejected from the vehicle or have your device impounded - recoverable from Mississauga Lost and Found located at the following maximally inconvenient address, and redeemable for a small fine of $25."

Or, more broadly: "Cellphones are not to be sold to persons under 21 years of age. Use of a cellphone is dependent on successfully passing a social etiquette exam. Failure to comply with the rules of social etiquette in respect to cellphone usage will result in a fine of not less than $500 and a lifetime suspension of your cellphone privileges."

But seriously. We're rapidly becoming a society of bubble people, people who don't recognize the claims, or perhaps indeed the very existence, of strangers who are more than six inches from the tips of their noses. Virtually every piece of "communications" technology marketed in the last couple of decades has contributed to that. Is there any way of reversing this trend?

Next time: "Reader, I kicked him."

QUEER AS FOLK COGNITIVE DISSONANCES #1-4

The American version of Queer as Folk aired from 2000 - 2005 & I have the entire series on DVD. Obviously I don't hate it. Nor am I one of those who would complain that it is "not representative of gay life" and hurts the cause, what with its cast of promiscuous, potty-talking, porn-obsessed, pill-popping, frequently-unfaithful-to-their-significant-others characters. Mind you, it isn't representative of most of us, and that includes the promiscuous party-goers: anymore than Bewitched was truly representative of American suburban life in the 1960's or Cheers of what actually goes on in bars. It's all fantasy, right?

However, nary an episode passed (at least after they'd used up the original British scripts) when something, or several things, didn't manage to annoy me. And as this blog is all about annoyances. I will be listing, in no particular order, as many of these annoyances as I can find - especially those that require the viewer to accept two contradictory things at once, i.e. "cognitive dissonance".

1. Uncalled for sex scenes. While, yes, "HELLO! - the series is ABOUT sex!", it never succeeded in making us relaxed about it, no matter how tastefully shot and artfully choreographed these scenes were. When the scene doesn't flow directly and realistically out of the moment for the characters, but is plopped in along the lines of: Well we haven't seen Lindsey and Mel do it since episode 2, have we? Or: What if Ted did that? - it turns the viewer into a voyeur, a spy. There is always at least one of these utterly unnecessary sex scenes, therefore embarrassing sex scenes, per episode
2. Shockeroo sex scenes. Subtly different from the above is the shockeroo sex scene. Not only is this unnecessary, it's quite unlikely, and even morally troubling. Two spring immediately to mind: a) Ted is buying Blake clothing. Blake goes into the store's changing room, which is actually just a circular curtained-off area in the middle of the store, and Ted follows him in they begin to... you know. Because it's broad daylight and the curtains aren't opaque, the silhouette of this action is quite visible from outside. Ted, up to this point, has been portrayed as a very uptight man whom you would never think would do something like this. In fact, you still don't think he would do something like this, so why do the writers insist on having him do it? For the sake of a shockeroo moment! The sales clerk figures out what's going on, and her response is just a sly, conspiratorial smile. Enjoy yourself boys! Rather than - oh, I don't know - scream out "Perverts! Perverts! Get out of here!" and call the police. b) A season or so later, Justin is giving Brian "the job we call blow" right on the sidewalk, in front of a poster of the evil homophobic mayoral candidate. Brian climaxes and Justin stands up and spits out Brian's semen all over the poster image of the mayor. I suppose this was meant as a political statement, but.... Eeww!
3. Brian's ad campaigns. Brian is supposed to be this hotshot cutting edge advertising genius. But almost all his ad campaigns involve associating hunky young men in varying degrees of nudity with the product being sold. I mean, he doesn't have any other ideas, none. The clients invariably are resistant to begin with, then they usually change their minds once they see how persuasive homoeroticism can be to the consumer. When Brian begins a presentation, his colleagues are polite enough never to interrupt him to say, "Let me guess, we're selling cat food - this'll be a guy in a speedo opening a can of Friskas for his cat, right?" "You couldn't be more wrong, he's wearing a jockstrap."
4. Queer moral lapses. Brian is forced to babysit his nephew for a few days. He catches the boy stealing, and grabs him by his neck, drags him over to the toilet bowl, and holds his head under for a few seconds. Later, the boy accuses him of sexual molestation, and provides a made-up story, as opposed to simply telling the truth about what happened. So: Brian is in a lot of trouble, and goes to court - how will he ever get out of this one? Ta da - Justin to the rescue once again! Justin manages to establish that the brat is a little liar, and the judge throws the case out of court. Triumph! HOWEVER, this viewer could not help but notice that sticking a kid's head in a toilet is also considered a form of assault in most places, and just about as serious an offense, even if it isn't sexual; and there Brian was definitely guilty. Yet the tone of this episode implies it's all about the good free-lovin' gays scoring one over the evil repressed family-values homophobes.

More to come...

BEING VOLUNTEERED IS A CONTRADICTION IN TERMS

Theoretically, volunteerism is great, but the literal meaning of the terms is to offer your services freely - without charge, and without being put in a position where you don't have any other choice.

Lately, corporations such as the one I work for have made a big thing about "corporate citizenship", meaning two things a) employees can log their volunteer hours outside work so that he company can say, "Look at what good citizens our employees are!" - (& it is implied "Look at what a good corporate citizen we are!"). Also, b) employees may be required or "strongly encouraged", during work time, to do volunteer work (again implying good corporate citizenship.)

But in the first case, the corporation cannot truly take credit for the volunteer work their employees do on their own time. It is simply an untruth to take credit for it. In the second case, this isn't truly volunteer work, as the employees are essentially being forced to do it as part of their job. Even if technically, you might be perfectly within your legal rights as an employee to refuse to take part in this and instead stay at work and do the job you were after all hired for, one just doesn't have the feeling that one has a choice. It won't look good if you decline to participate. (Moreover, many employees don't have a clear idea of what their rights are in such cases.)

Perhaps I'm being unduly cynical. I wouldn't deny that it's a good thing that companies encourage volunteerism on the part of their employees and provide them with the opportunities. But what bothers me is that companies do this primarily because it makes them look good.

And as a consequence I have spent this morning mucking about planting trees. Well, good enough for me.