It actually looks like Spencer and Heidi are making it work. It reminds me of that scene in Annie Hall, where Alvie Singer approaches people on the street and asks them for extremely intimate details about their relationships. He asks a tall couple why they look so happy together, and the guy answers, "Well, I'm extremely shallow and have no ideas or thoughts of my own." And then his partner says, "And I'm the same." Then Singer says, "Oh, so you managed to work something out." Only with Heidi and Spencer it would be, "I'm extremely shallow, self-centered and passive aggressive" and Spencer would state the same thing. Then they would launch into some mantic about conspiracy theories and 9/11.
@Bunsen Honeydew: Dissing Al Roker is an admirable goal. Dissing Al Roker should be encouraged amongst all our young citizens. Dissing Al Roker cures acne, psoriasis and baldness.
ARGLEBLARGH if you don't want kids, don't have them. It is not only unfair to the children, who will know that they aren't wanted, but it's just a waste of everyone's time and produces weird results.
Yes, some people change their mind. But some people don't. If you "surprise" someone, that's low, it violates trust that can take years to come back, and may cause a lot of parent-child resentment.
Why wouldn't you discuss the future you want with the person you're going to marry? Presumably, you don't plan on getting divorced, so wouldn't you want to hammer out the tough issues before it costs you thousands of dollars?
There was an article I found via one of the Village Voice's now defunct sex blogs about "alternative models," disabled models, plus size models (Velvet D'Amour specifically), and trans models. The author complained that underneath the fat, tattoos, visible disabilities, etc., these people were only models because they had conventionally beautiful features and bone structures...
Well, isn't that kind of the point? If we started saying that everyone could be models, would it not make the profession kind of meaningless?
I went to Nuit Blanche in Toronto 2 months ago, and was pleasantly uncomfortable with an exhibit that had people with various disabilities in the nude. The artist said that he himself was disabled and has a hard time being thought of as a sexual being, and someone with very regular desires. Each photo had a section undedrneath and a lot of these people think the same thing. There are many people that look at the disability and define a person as the disability, so maybe a show that has these disabled women as objects of desire isn't a terrible thing.
I saw this last year and it absolutely infuriated me. It's kind of like those Gok Wan shoes, or those 'What Not to Wear' type programmes. Sure, they might 'make women feel better about themselves', but they make women feel better about themselves by getting them to conform to damaging patriarchal notions that a woman's worth is determined by her appeal to men, and her attractiveness. I don't know if any of you have seen Gok Wan, but he basically gives women makeovers and then gets them to pose naked in sexy shots, under the guise of 'celebrating real (cringe) women'... but it's not, it's just saying that 'real' (as opposed to those fake models?) women can be objectified too. This is kind of the same thing... hey! You're disabled, but that doesn't mean you're excempt from the constrictions of patriarchy and can't be objectified aswell.
What bugs me about shows like this--those that are supposed to make people more confident despite something about them that isn't considered conventionally beautiful--is that they all seem to use a competitive reality show format that's ultimately based on looks. So they're saying, you guys are beautiful too, but this week one of you isn't quite beautiful enough, so pack your bags. There's something wonky about that message.
This is one reason (I know, the show's still pretty horrible) I can appreciate Tough Love. At least those women are focusing on learning they can find/have a healthy relationship--not competing with each other to prove they can find a healthy relationship better than all the other girls.
Did anyone else think that the conclusions reached by the show (lift up one woman and you save her entire community) was overly simplistic? We are no more perfect creatures than are men, so lifting up one woman may result in nothing more than lifting up that ONE WOMAN - there's NO guarantee that she'll be the kind to pass it on or use the opportunity for the good of others.
@LazyHippo: You can give a child prostitute a scholarship, good education and a doctorate in medecine but it doesn't mean she'll go back to the village to practice!
@sybann: There are a lot of statistics showing that most women who receive micro-loans use the money well. There are many real success stories. They didn't mention that a woman who ends up with a herd of cows, for example, might be killed, her herd stolen by men. The plan may be idealistic but better than doing nothing. There's no way to change social oppression in someone else's culture, so the solution has to be economic.
@slauza: I didn't say it wasn't - I said (in my first comment) that I was disturbed somewhat by the assumption they were making that it was inevitable.
Since women are primary caregivers of children they are most likely going to be concerned about more than themselves (and just buying beer and candy - which was what was said about the men), but it seemed that it was implied during the show that it always was better to help a woman.
I can certainly get behind the effort - and have made micro loans myself - with NO expectation of repayment or even thanks.
It just seemed to me that (again) an Oprah show wasn't telling an entire story entirely truthfully.
09:24 PM
07:40 PM
08:04 PM
08:11 PM
07:28 PM
Yes, some people change their mind. But some people don't. If you "surprise" someone, that's low, it violates trust that can take years to come back, and may cause a lot of parent-child resentment.
Why wouldn't you discuss the future you want with the person you're going to marry? Presumably, you don't plan on getting divorced, so wouldn't you want to hammer out the tough issues before it costs you thousands of dollars?
08:05 PM
Or once their friends are.
08:54 PM
06:13 PM
05:35 PM
05:26 PM
Sorry guys, vid is not working -- go look it op on mtv.com!
05:23 PM
05:18 PM
03:06 PM
DISABLED MODDLES: JUST LIKE REGULAR MODDLES
02:54 PM
Well, isn't that kind of the point? If we started saying that everyone could be models, would it not make the profession kind of meaningless?
02:53 PM
02:52 PM
02:40 PM
This is one reason (I know, the show's still pretty horrible) I can appreciate Tough Love. At least those women are focusing on learning they can find/have a healthy relationship--not competing with each other to prove they can find a healthy relationship better than all the other girls.
02:26 PM
02:50 PM
08:07 AM
12:49 PM
02:06 PM
02:59 PM
04:03 PM
Since women are primary caregivers of children they are most likely going to be concerned about more than themselves (and just buying beer and candy - which was what was said about the men), but it seemed that it was implied during the show that it always was better to help a woman.
I can certainly get behind the effort - and have made micro loans myself - with NO expectation of repayment or even thanks.
It just seemed to me that (again) an Oprah show wasn't telling an entire story entirely truthfully.