At some point during the rise of the hookup culture, the popularization of the 3 a.m. booty-text, and the relative decline of the traditional date, romance went out the window. Somehow the idea of falling hopelessly in love like they used to in the movies is becoming more of a pleasant idea than a recurring reality. In today's world of nebulous romantic connections, the old mantra "first comes love, then comes marriage..." seems almost laughably archaic. With this mindset coupled with the fact that the divorce rate of our parents' generation is at around 50%, it's no wonder many of us are losing hope for that fairytale ending.
In a recent editorial for the GW Hatchet, Kelsey Rowher suggests that the unrealistic optimism of Disney movies is what started the attitudinal deterioration surrounding marriage that contributed to the failure of one out of two of them. The beginning of her argument makes a lot of sense. It isn't surprising that many give up when faced with the harsh reality that marriage isn't as easy as happily-ever-after. However, in light of some recent conversations, I'm not quite as gung-ho about her suggestion that our generation may be saved by the element of realism introduced into many of the newer Disney romances.
During a discussion about marriage and divorce, my best friend's roommate light-heartedly proclaimed, "your marriage license should just be up for renewal every few years." I was admittedly a little taken aback. This concept is clearly a far cry from "til death do us part." If anything, an idea like this indicates that our generation is even more jaded than the previous one. We've made a mental distinction between marriage the theory and marriage the reality. Yes, we'd like to have confidence in the romantic roots of the institution, but somewhere in the back of our minds, we've made our peace with marriage as a piece of paper and a tax break that all too often ends with lawyers and alimony checks. The cynicism runs just a little too deep to be remedied by revamped Dinsey plotlines, no matter how realistic.
We don't need to revise the portrayal of marriage in order to save it as an institution; we need to revise what marriage means to us. Even if Prince Charming didn't have more important things to do than sweep you off your feet and onto his white horse, you probably have more important things to do than to wait for him. Moving away from the mindset of "wedded bliss" and toward the concept of marriage as a support system that needs to be diligently maintained may very well be its salvation.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Emergency! Twitter Down!
As a widely known facebook addict among my friends, I certainly hold the social-networking culture dear to my heart. I understand the profound, albeit somewhat creepy thrill one gets from subtly stalking friends and acquaintances via the internet. While I haven't yet jumped on the Twitter bandwagon, I can see the appeal of the real-time information exchange that threatens the relevance of the once popular acronym, TMI.
That being said, I found a recent CNN article on the topic of the great Twitter outage of 2009 to be more than a little disturbing. Why? Because it was littered with the word "panic."
I have been known to panic on many occasions. I am intimately acquainted with the cold sweat, the tightened, labored breathing, and the horrifying hopelessness that are part of the short list of its identifying characteristics. Panic is not always rationally triggered. I am the first to admit that there have been many occasions I've pivoted into a frantic tizzy for seemingly no good reason. Not being able to log into a website to inform those who have passing familiarity with my name that "Nicole is drinking chocolate milk in her pajamas" has never been one of them.
The gratuitious use of the word "panic" in the aforementioned article is troubling in that it indicates a serious skewing of priorities. Inability to access food should induce panic; inability to access Twitter should not. If our generation is so dependant upon social networking that its temporary outage is cause for alarm, we may have bigger problems than interrupted access.
Perhaps the answer is to occasionally (gasp) make non-technologically facilitated social contact. Your friends and family won't need to be informed of your decision to drink chocolate milk in your pajamas if they're there to do it with you! Social networking should enhance our social lives, not replace them. Having a realistic view of Twitter, Facebook, and blogging in the grand scheme of life priorities may relegate panic to more appropriate arenas.
That being said, I found a recent CNN article on the topic of the great Twitter outage of 2009 to be more than a little disturbing. Why? Because it was littered with the word "panic."
I have been known to panic on many occasions. I am intimately acquainted with the cold sweat, the tightened, labored breathing, and the horrifying hopelessness that are part of the short list of its identifying characteristics. Panic is not always rationally triggered. I am the first to admit that there have been many occasions I've pivoted into a frantic tizzy for seemingly no good reason. Not being able to log into a website to inform those who have passing familiarity with my name that "Nicole is drinking chocolate milk in her pajamas" has never been one of them.
The gratuitious use of the word "panic" in the aforementioned article is troubling in that it indicates a serious skewing of priorities. Inability to access food should induce panic; inability to access Twitter should not. If our generation is so dependant upon social networking that its temporary outage is cause for alarm, we may have bigger problems than interrupted access.
Perhaps the answer is to occasionally (gasp) make non-technologically facilitated social contact. Your friends and family won't need to be informed of your decision to drink chocolate milk in your pajamas if they're there to do it with you! Social networking should enhance our social lives, not replace them. Having a realistic view of Twitter, Facebook, and blogging in the grand scheme of life priorities may relegate panic to more appropriate arenas.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Less is More
A few months ago while studying abroad in Australia, a friend of mine found herself engaged in a scintilating conversation with a guy she'd met in a bar. At some point after the ceremonial phone number exchange but just before she headed home, the man casually referenced his wife. Apparently, for the aforementioned Australian, holy matrimony was not an obstacle to picking up girls in bars, nor he allow it to stop him from texting my friend for several months. Another friend, studying in Bologna, discovered several weeks after she'd been dating an Italian that he had been in a serious relationship for the past three years. As more stories like these surface, one has to wonder about the current attitude toward monogamy. Has the proverbial search for a soulmate become obsolete?
Biologically speaking, monogamy makes very little sense. The average man has the theoretical ability to produce literally hundres of children, whereas the average woman has a much smaller reproductive capacity. Humans, along with some species of birds, and some other primates, are on a rather short list of monogamous animals. Even among humans, there are many cultures that do not practice monogamy. It has been, and remains, a largely Occidental concept.
But even in the so-called "Western" world, true monogamy appears to be losing ground. With the onset of the "hook-up" culture, even formal dating seems to be on the decline. Many just don't see the appeal of committing to one person.
Maybe monogamy only existed because it was encultrated at some point into Occidental society, but that doesn't diminish its value. Be it a blessing or a curse, humans are highly emotional beings, and even the most hard-hearted players and most skittish committment-phobes must admit that from an emotional standpoint, monogamy is at the very least a nice concept. Having an exclusive connection with someone without the stress and insecurity that comes with playing the proverbial game certainly contributes positively to emotional health.
I don't see monogamy as a moral high ground; sometimes fooling around just works. But perhaps the utter rejection of committment isn't desirable in the long run. There must be a reason monogamy has been so prevalant for so many years, and I think we should give it some thought before we kiss it goodbye as we did romance and chivalry.
Biologically speaking, monogamy makes very little sense. The average man has the theoretical ability to produce literally hundres of children, whereas the average woman has a much smaller reproductive capacity. Humans, along with some species of birds, and some other primates, are on a rather short list of monogamous animals. Even among humans, there are many cultures that do not practice monogamy. It has been, and remains, a largely Occidental concept.
But even in the so-called "Western" world, true monogamy appears to be losing ground. With the onset of the "hook-up" culture, even formal dating seems to be on the decline. Many just don't see the appeal of committing to one person.
Maybe monogamy only existed because it was encultrated at some point into Occidental society, but that doesn't diminish its value. Be it a blessing or a curse, humans are highly emotional beings, and even the most hard-hearted players and most skittish committment-phobes must admit that from an emotional standpoint, monogamy is at the very least a nice concept. Having an exclusive connection with someone without the stress and insecurity that comes with playing the proverbial game certainly contributes positively to emotional health.
I don't see monogamy as a moral high ground; sometimes fooling around just works. But perhaps the utter rejection of committment isn't desirable in the long run. There must be a reason monogamy has been so prevalant for so many years, and I think we should give it some thought before we kiss it goodbye as we did romance and chivalry.
Friday, June 12, 2009
999,998... 999,999... 1 Million?
How many words are there in the English language? According to the Global Language Monitor, a website that has developed a mathematical formula for determining the rate of creation of new English words, the count has just reached 1,000,000 this Wednesday. But are the building blocks of sentence formation really enumerable?
The Oxford English Dictionary contains 600,000 words. Most agree that the English language contains many words that haven't yet made it into the dictionary, particularly those which can be classified as jargon or slang. But how many more words exist beyond the clearly defined and universally accepted 600,000?
To even begin to conceptualize the answer to this question, one would have to clearly define what constitutes a word. The website's only prerequisite is that the word is understood in 60% of the English-speaking world. However, there are many adulterations of the English language that are widely understood while not quite reaching word status. Say "funnest" or "stupidest" anywhere English is spoken and rest assured you'll be understood, regardless of the fact that neither of the aforementioned utterences are considered words. And what if a word has many meanings in different contexts? The word "sketchy" can be used to convey the uncertainty of details or the discomfort of a situation. Would it be counted as one word or two?
While it is certainly an interesting idea, attempting to count the number of words in the English language is like attempting to count to infinity. Language is not a quantatative entity. What is important is not how many words exist, but what you can do with them.
The Oxford English Dictionary contains 600,000 words. Most agree that the English language contains many words that haven't yet made it into the dictionary, particularly those which can be classified as jargon or slang. But how many more words exist beyond the clearly defined and universally accepted 600,000?
To even begin to conceptualize the answer to this question, one would have to clearly define what constitutes a word. The website's only prerequisite is that the word is understood in 60% of the English-speaking world. However, there are many adulterations of the English language that are widely understood while not quite reaching word status. Say "funnest" or "stupidest" anywhere English is spoken and rest assured you'll be understood, regardless of the fact that neither of the aforementioned utterences are considered words. And what if a word has many meanings in different contexts? The word "sketchy" can be used to convey the uncertainty of details or the discomfort of a situation. Would it be counted as one word or two?
While it is certainly an interesting idea, attempting to count the number of words in the English language is like attempting to count to infinity. Language is not a quantatative entity. What is important is not how many words exist, but what you can do with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
