BlogHer - anger - Comments

Not in Love

lauralohr — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 17:21:10 -0500

This book has so much history and tradition for me. I was a bit depressed, disappointed and bored.

Laura (lauralohr.com)

We didn't like it

annieand — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 00:17:09 -0500

I talked about how it was not worth the money to see it in the theaters for our family.

wow

Marguerita99 — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 14:35:55 -0500

you know what? At least you found out now. This could have happened in 12 years when your child *remembered* it. At least your son will be spared that.

you aren't alone

debontherocks — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:36:52 -0500

You aren't alone in this read of the movie, so I'm glad you are adding this perspective. I don't think Max's life will be the same though, I think he'll be in charge of himself. Admittedly, the script does indulge a lot of Buddist, Jungian and good old-fashioned group-therapy-with-monsters spins.

I kind of do like ennui, though. ;)

Deb
www.debontherocks.com blog
www.3smartgirlz.com consulting

running away

debontherocks — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:31:58 -0500

It definitely was a divergence from the book, which upset some people. I liked it as a plot device. It emphasized the sense of distance between the worlds, and helped the suspension of disbelief factor. When Max stays in his room after being sent there he is obeying his mother, and though that is not obvious in the book it would have been in the film. I like it that Eggers/Jonze prolonged Max's rebellion and delays his "civilization."

Deb
www.debontherocks.com blog
www.3smartgirlz.com consulting

Not for Kids or Adults who Love the Book

Damn Skippy — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:47:55 -0500

The movie was visually amazing and will win all the technical awards (rightly so). But just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. The piled-on miseries of Max's life and the emotional wallowiness of the monsters just reduces the story to a sad psychotherapy session. It's almost as bad as what Burton did to Wonka. All the tacked-on real world stuff is depressing.

Max's rule of the island doesn't just end when he gets homesick, like in the book. No, it begins right off the bat filled with petty insecurities and then quickly falls apart in a pathetic (but accurate) depiction of social dissolution. Every character gets a chance to fall short of someone else's expectations and suffer through the resulting emotional discomfort. Over and over again.

Finally the story ends up in exactly the same place it began. When Max wakes up tomorrow, his life will still be miserable and lonely. If you love the book - and if you want your children to love the book the way you do - don't take them to see this film. Go see it alone, when you feel like wallowing in hopelessness, insecurity and ennui.

Deb, what did you think about the running away

Honeybeast — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:06:52 -0500

instead of the melting walls? That (well, that and whether the lead Thing would bring Tony Soprano immediately to mind) is my main point of curiosity. Can't wait to see it!

Why blame when we can change all situations in life?

Daubiri — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:44:29 -0500

Life is too sweet to blame others for the wrong things that happen to us. If we know better, the wrong things we see that make us to blame others are all leading to the solution we ever needed, we will not think of blaming other for our lack of understanding in life.

This means that every human being has the ability to solve the problems that comes them.

You can do all things in your direction in life.

Responsibility to whom?

Bill Cammack — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 06:38:28 -0500

You're welcome, AV.

To be clear... I agree in theory, ethically, morally, religiously, however one wants to define it, in being as nice to people as is possible under the circumstances. I also believe in "responsibility" as both of you have defined it. People are DEFINITELY to be held "responsible" for their actions. They're the ones that did it, so the finger must definitely be pointed at them.

IS the third party (assuming they knew the person was in a relationship) "responsible" for the situation? Yes. Definitely. They could have said "No. Not interested. You're spoken for" and they didn't. The question is... "Responsible to whom?".

Yeah. So that person's responsible.. That's true. So what? That and a couple of bucks will get you a cup of coffee. The fact remains that if a guy (or gal, in the reverse situation) stands up at an altar and puts his hand on a stack of bibles and swears up and down to you that he's going to be sexually faithful to you, *HE* has taken on the responsibility to do exactly that. He doesn't say "I'm going to be faithful unless you stop giving it up" or "I'm going to be faithful unless I meet a sexier woman" or "I'm going to be as faithful as I can" or "I'm going to be as faithful as other women allow me to be by not CAUSING ME to cheat on you by throwing it at me".

Similarly, if I tell someone they can park in front of a hydrant (when I knew they couldn't) and they do it and then they get a ticket.. Am I responsible for that? Yes. I led them astray. Do I have to pay ONE. RED. CENT. for their ticket? Nope. It's their car. It's their responsibility. There's nothing they can say that will have a judge agree that I should chip in for the ticket or pay the entire thing, since it was clearly my fault.

This is why I'm saying the person that made the agreement is the only one to blame in these situations. They promised to be faithful under all conditions. They failed. Period. When Twitter fails, is TweetDeck blamed? Nope.

Also, anyone who believes that their fellow human being is going to follow the same rules they live by is at a distinct disadvantage. When a situation occurs, they only consider a subset of the possible explanations, because the rest of them fall outside of "what's right" or what they BELIEVE their SO would do. Unfortunately, considering reality is depressing and many people would rather not consider the potential depths of the situation and keep their blinders on until "suddenly" their SO has a change of heart when the signs were always right there.

Anyway, didn't intend to hijack your thread, haha I just wanted to put my two cents in as usual. :) I just find it psychologically fascinating how people make up these relationship dynamics in order to make themselves feel better about themselves and their lives. I can't imagine myself saying, if I found out that I had been cheated on by a gal I was dating "Hey... Well... At least she gave it up to Tyrese Gibson! :D" That's ridiculous. "At least she gave it up to some guy that mentally outsmarted her".. "At least she gave it up to a guy that's richer than I am".. "At least she's not pregnant".. "At least she'll still have sex with me".....

The fact in that hypothetical situation is that SHE promised ME not to have sex with other guys and then had sex with other guys. She Failed. My deal was with HER, not with THEM. Are they morally, ethically, religiously, or perhaps karmically responsible? Yes, they are. Have they done ethically "wrong" or violated codes of community decency? Yes, they have. Does any of that help out my SO about not living up to her promise to me? Nope.

~ Bill

I blog at billcammack.com

I appreciate the positive

avflox — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 01:22:05 -0500

I appreciate the positive message you close with in your comment, Deanna, but I have several issues with the things you're saying.

I don't think blame is the answer. I think accountability is. If you were cheated on, you must realize that it is your partner with whom you should address the issue. Blaming yourself or blaming the other party is not conducive to healing of any sort. More than blaming your partner, I think the focus should be in making them accountable.

Second, this isn't just an issue of "women who don't care who they hurt." Women in monogamous relationships cheat as well. It's not just a a matter of another woman becoming involved with a committed man, though the example of Jon and Kate was employed and the emphasis placed on the media's treatment of "the other woman." In all my media consumption, I simply have not seen the same treatment of women's "other men"--in those cases, the unfaithful woman is usually the "sleeze witch."

Because whereas "men can't help it" or are excused because they are so "willing to give up too easily on their relationships"--women are expected to be able to help it and persevere. So women are villains either way. I take issue with that.

Lastly, the notion that cheating occurs because a woman has stopped taking care of herself is downright outrageous. Beauty does not exempt you from being a victim of infidelity. I don't believe a good monogamous union is saved by you perpetually playing "hot mama." Trust me. I was a very well-kept Stepford wife who never broke 18 on the BMI.

Men don't just want a hot thing. They need emotional attention as much as women do. They need connection as much as women do. They are not the Darwinian missing link who function differently and need different things than we do. All of the notions expressing the opposite tie into gender stereotypes that do more harm than good.

Men are not from Mars, women are not from Venus. We're both from Earth.

Well! That certainly was a lively discussion!

avflox — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 00:59:41 -0500

Thank you both. I think my opinion falls somewhere in-between yours. Like CL, my views do tend toward a non-religious belief that we must be held accountable for our actions, whether we made a commitment or not. For example, I never promised my commenters that I would be polite with them no matter how much they may enrage me. But I feel being appropriate is a duty and therefore, I do my best to respond as best as possible to things that require a response no matter how livid such things make me.

That's "personal responsibility" and, of course, as Bill said, I know that the things that I view as part of my personal responsibility vary from person to person. Someone else may not see it as reprehensible to respond in equal measure to being called something nasty.

But it is my belief that we are all responsible for our choices and actions. A woman (or man) who becomes involved with someone in a relationship made a decision and they are responsible for the part they took in the situation. Are they to blame? No. Will putting the blame on them help the person who was wronged heal and move on? No. Will villainizing them in the media as a slutty homewrecker help address the issue? No.

The issue of infidelity should be addressed within the couple. That's where the answers are.

Thank you both for the discussion, I think it really adds to the piece.

Honey, if you had only read

Caffeinated Librarian — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:21:56 -0500

Honey, if you had only read and quoted the next sentence down:

"And there ought to be some responsibility for THAT choice, if they make
it knowing that the man is in a relationship with another woman."

"If" being the key word here. You can't be blamed for what you don't know.

Dating him after you know...well, then I go back to the "taking responsibility for your choices" idea again. Being in love may make it understandably difficult but it doesn't mean you shouldn't take responsibility for the choice and whatever consequences come after that point regardless of whether you decide to stay or go, because there will likely be consequences with either choice. Love isn't a "Get out of Jail Free" card to life.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger]

"But the other woman was

malackey — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:55:20 -0500

"But the other woman was involved...the whole thing wouldn't, couldn't
have happened if the other woman hadn't decided to participate."

Making the assumption the other woman even knew about the pre-existing wife/girlfriend/partner. Having been the other woman, I can assure you that remarkably few men out looking to cheat on their partners are considerate enough to inform their dates that they're otherwise committed. And, in some cases, by the time you find out your boyfriend is married, you're head over heels in love with him. Why should I carry any blame for dating?

Cheating

Deanna64 — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:50:37 -0500

Whos to blame? Lets see, theres usually two to three to blame. One is the other woman, two is the male and three is you.

Before you jump, let me explain. SOME women nowadays dont care who they hurt, whos famiy they ruin or what it costs, they want what they want when they want it. If you go on a certain game, there are sleeze witches waiting to pick up a guy. Not all are there to have relationships but before you know your spending more time with the other person and then you break into the emotional affair.

The men are to blame for not taking their relatinships seriously. The are willing to give up too easilly on their current relationship.

Third, is you!! When you stop caring about yourself and stop making yourself a priority then your mate will see that too. You dont dress up anymore, you dont play the HOT MAMA routing then something is missing. If you dont do it for your man, then do it for you. Once you start taking care of yourself, and making yourself priority then your other half will wonder and realize what they have.

If that dont work and your man still cheats, then guess what dahling, he wasnt meant to have anyhow. Live your life, take care of yourself and realize your ONE HOT MAMA!

Maybe in the short-run

Caffeinated Librarian — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 14:50:02 -0500

Maybe in the short-run they're at a disadvantage, but in the long run I don't think they are - it all depends on what your goals are in life.

Plus, karma (or whatever you want to call it) tends to find a way to bite people in the butt in their own lifetimes, given enough time and opportunity. And I'm not so much of a "true believer" that I can't appreciate THAT. :-)

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger]