It is a tribute to the ingenuity of capitalism that it never stops discovering, or inventing, new places to put advertising. We've already gotten so used to ads on top and the sides of taxis; on the inside and then outsides of buses and subway cars; and on bus shelters. I noticed ads on the tops of the tables in the mall's food court. A major move was when they started showing ads for the snack bar in movie theaters. And, as we know, if you do a Google search, there are listings which are paid--in other words, ads. I could even make some money by allowing ads on this blog.
I just started to play an online movie and it was preceded by a commercial.
I think I can suggest a few places to put ads that haven't been thought of yet, but I'm sure it would only be a matter of time:
How about ads on the underside of toilet seats in public toilets? No, wait a minute, women would never see them.
Ads on mousetraps?
Ads on the TV monitor that my dentist has in his office? Wait, I think they already have that: ads for teeth whitening and so on.
Ads on pizza boxes.
Ads on soda pop cans.
Maybe when I turn on the stereo in my car, ads could flash on the LCD digital display. Or do they already have that?
Update, December 24, 2011
A couple new (and maybe clever) places to put ads: A couple of months ago, the new(ish) Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel (former Obama White House staffer), gained some revenue for the City of Chicago by selling advertising on public spaces, for example the gigantic pylons at the entrance to a major downtown bridge. This has been controversial--rightly so, in my opinion.
And, I sent e-cards this year as Christmas cards, Chanukah cards, and several birthday cards. These were free cards, and I think that the recipients had to view advertising before being able to view their cards. If that's true I'm rather mortified.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Friday, June 26, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A Word to Writers
So far my postings on this blog have dealt with quite a few subjects—because I have opinions on nearly everything. However, I think it's time to turn attention to something that I truly am qualified to pontificate on, and that's writing—and maybe editing, too. However, I don't think I'm going to truck out my credentials.
First: Apparently we are all taught in school that, in writing that quotes one or more people, you don't keep repeating says. So-and-so says, this-and-that person says. Presumably this gets boring, so you have to vary the word used.
Well, maybe, but the attempts to avoid saying says get ludicrous. Okay, you see ". . . adds Jones," ". . . observes Smith," ". . . argues Wilson," and "Cynthia shares. . . ." But when it gets to "disagrees Carlson," and "excuses Johnson," it's getting silly. Or what about cautions, interprets, contradicts, predicts, shares, muses, opines, and jokes. I hate shares. Some of those others might be all right, but don't use jokes unless you are sure the person meant to be joking or said what he said in a joking tone; and similarly for predicts, muses, and so forth. I think that's part of my objection, that the writer is attributing an intention to the speaker that may not be there.
While I suspect that the inverted thing ("shares Cynthia") somehow violates grammaticality, at the very least they sound very odd, even wrong; and these writers' ears should tell them so.
So many of the dicta that we were indoctrinated with in school—not the least "Don't repeat says"—at best are not to be over-broadly applied and at worst are out-and-out wrong.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
First: Apparently we are all taught in school that, in writing that quotes one or more people, you don't keep repeating says. So-and-so says, this-and-that person says. Presumably this gets boring, so you have to vary the word used.
Well, maybe, but the attempts to avoid saying says get ludicrous. Okay, you see ". . . adds Jones," ". . . observes Smith," ". . . argues Wilson," and "Cynthia shares. . . ." But when it gets to "disagrees Carlson," and "excuses Johnson," it's getting silly. Or what about cautions, interprets, contradicts, predicts, shares, muses, opines, and jokes. I hate shares. Some of those others might be all right, but don't use jokes unless you are sure the person meant to be joking or said what he said in a joking tone; and similarly for predicts, muses, and so forth. I think that's part of my objection, that the writer is attributing an intention to the speaker that may not be there.
While I suspect that the inverted thing ("shares Cynthia") somehow violates grammaticality, at the very least they sound very odd, even wrong; and these writers' ears should tell them so.
So many of the dicta that we were indoctrinated with in school—not the least "Don't repeat says"—at best are not to be over-broadly applied and at worst are out-and-out wrong.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Friday, June 19, 2009
TV Has Come to This?
I was channel surfing today. I don't know what channel or network this was, but I stopped at a guy sitting on a stool, holding a microphone. There was silence for a second or so, and then he loudly belched into the microphone.
I don't wish to be non-hip, or curmudgeonly, but is this art? Is this even entertainment? Does watching this enrich the lives of its viewers? Maybe this is some less highbrow (i.e., Joe Sixpack) version of a nihilist movement in art? I guess I should have perceived sooner that this is what TV has come to, since Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin ("Family Guy") love to make various biological noises. And I have to assume that this amuses some people. But it can't really require much talent to do this. What is the going rate for sitting on a stool in front of a TV camera and belching? Maybe there was more to this dude's act than that, but I didn't stick around to find out.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
I don't wish to be non-hip, or curmudgeonly, but is this art? Is this even entertainment? Does watching this enrich the lives of its viewers? Maybe this is some less highbrow (i.e., Joe Sixpack) version of a nihilist movement in art? I guess I should have perceived sooner that this is what TV has come to, since Homer Simpson and Peter Griffin ("Family Guy") love to make various biological noises. And I have to assume that this amuses some people. But it can't really require much talent to do this. What is the going rate for sitting on a stool in front of a TV camera and belching? Maybe there was more to this dude's act than that, but I didn't stick around to find out.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
The Underrated Limerick
The limerick is an underrated art form.
You say "limerick" and people automatically think of the bawdy kind. But the limerick is simply a verse form (for those into such things, it's got the rhyme scheme of aabba, with a definite number of syllables and stresses in each line). They are usually humorous, but I'd even go so far as to say that most of them are not bawdy.
The king of the limerick was Edward Lear, an English writer of the Victorian age. He was roughly contemporary with Lewis Carroll, whom I mention in the same breath with good reason: what the two have in common is that both are thought of as writers for children.
Most people, if I ask them if they know of Lear, say No. However, if you ask them if they know certain of Lear's better-known works, such as "The Owl and the Pussy-Cat," they will say Yes. Lear wrote that, and "The Jumblies," and stories, a number of long poems, and many limericks. And more. (For a collection of his works, see The Nonsense Books of Edward Lear, New American Library, 1964.) He called what he wrote "nonsense," but I think that that word needs to be understood in a certain way. And the world needs more of this sort of nonsense, I feel.
I myself have written quite a few limericks. Most of them came about by a rather strange occurrence. It is strange to me—the only time this has happened to me—and I'm sure stranger still to anyone else—except those who already doubt my sanity.
This was while I was a graduate student, in the 1960s. For a period of about 24 hours, my mind just kept composing limericks. I think I was sitting in my classes writing limericks. When I went to bed at night, a limerick would form itself in my mind and I'd have to sit up, turn on the light, and write it down. Then I'd go back to bed—and the process repeated itself. Over and over. When this fit of limerick-writing finally passed, I'd written nearly 50 limericks (unfortunately I've lost a number of them because the paper has disintegrated over the years).
I've often thought they should be published and, from time to time, I've made a half-hearted effort to find someone who could do drawings to accompany them. (Lear's limericks have drawings which I presume he himself did.)
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
You say "limerick" and people automatically think of the bawdy kind. But the limerick is simply a verse form (for those into such things, it's got the rhyme scheme of aabba, with a definite number of syllables and stresses in each line). They are usually humorous, but I'd even go so far as to say that most of them are not bawdy.
The king of the limerick was Edward Lear, an English writer of the Victorian age. He was roughly contemporary with Lewis Carroll, whom I mention in the same breath with good reason: what the two have in common is that both are thought of as writers for children.
Most people, if I ask them if they know of Lear, say No. However, if you ask them if they know certain of Lear's better-known works, such as "The Owl and the Pussy-Cat," they will say Yes. Lear wrote that, and "The Jumblies," and stories, a number of long poems, and many limericks. And more. (For a collection of his works, see The Nonsense Books of Edward Lear, New American Library, 1964.) He called what he wrote "nonsense," but I think that that word needs to be understood in a certain way. And the world needs more of this sort of nonsense, I feel.
I myself have written quite a few limericks. Most of them came about by a rather strange occurrence. It is strange to me—the only time this has happened to me—and I'm sure stranger still to anyone else—except those who already doubt my sanity.
This was while I was a graduate student, in the 1960s. For a period of about 24 hours, my mind just kept composing limericks. I think I was sitting in my classes writing limericks. When I went to bed at night, a limerick would form itself in my mind and I'd have to sit up, turn on the light, and write it down. Then I'd go back to bed—and the process repeated itself. Over and over. When this fit of limerick-writing finally passed, I'd written nearly 50 limericks (unfortunately I've lost a number of them because the paper has disintegrated over the years).
I've often thought they should be published and, from time to time, I've made a half-hearted effort to find someone who could do drawings to accompany them. (Lear's limericks have drawings which I presume he himself did.)
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Friday, June 12, 2009
My Garden
I planted a shoe tree, but nothing came up.
Then I planted some bird seed, and something sprouted, but it never bore birds.
Then I bought some bedding plants, and I expected to get sheets, pillow cases, and blankets.
Then I did some pruning in my garden. I took a bundle of twigs to the bank, and when I got to the teller, she said, "Are you crazy? We don’t take that," and I said, "Isn’t this a branch bank?"
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Then I planted some bird seed, and something sprouted, but it never bore birds.
Then I bought some bedding plants, and I expected to get sheets, pillow cases, and blankets.
Then I did some pruning in my garden. I took a bundle of twigs to the bank, and when I got to the teller, she said, "Are you crazy? We don’t take that," and I said, "Isn’t this a branch bank?"
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Thursday, June 11, 2009
The World Is Ruled by "C" Students
It may be widely thought that the most intelligent people are not the most successful. To put it another way—assuming that grades in school are a good measure of intelligence, which I admit may be a faulty assumption—the world is ruled by the B (or C, or C-) students.
When George W. Bush was president we often heard that he had been a C- student in school. Whatever you think of that man, being President of the United States has to be considered being successful.
I belong to Mensa, the high-IQ society. In Mensa we often talk about the fact that having a high IQ is no guarantee of success and that intelligence (or, again, I'm using grades as a proxy for intelligence) does not correlate with success (as measured by income, I believe). I've seen a graph published in Mensa publications that showed grades plotted against some measure of success (again, I surmise it was income). Success increased with grades, up into the average grade of B; and then it declined for those earning A's.
One might want to think about the reason for this. One probably simple and unarguable way to put it might be that success requires a kind of "smarts" that does not and never will correlate with simple IQ or book learning. Or, in a more contemporary lingo, the people with the good grades or high IQs may have one kind of intelligence but they may lack "social intelligence." In fact, IQ (as measured on IQ tests) and social intelligence are quite different attributes of an individual and may not correlate very well with one another.
One last word on intelligence and public office. Of course Dubya was not the only person in politics whose smarts might not have been of the highest. In the Bill Maher film Religulous, there is an interview with a Congressman from a Southern state who admits that there is no intelligence test for public office. On the other hand, Bill Clinton supposedly is very smart, and I don't think anyone doubts that Barack Obama is smart--both exceptions to the generalization stated above. I wonder if it can be coincidence that both of these men, highly intelligent presidents, are Democrats.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
When George W. Bush was president we often heard that he had been a C- student in school. Whatever you think of that man, being President of the United States has to be considered being successful.
I belong to Mensa, the high-IQ society. In Mensa we often talk about the fact that having a high IQ is no guarantee of success and that intelligence (or, again, I'm using grades as a proxy for intelligence) does not correlate with success (as measured by income, I believe). I've seen a graph published in Mensa publications that showed grades plotted against some measure of success (again, I surmise it was income). Success increased with grades, up into the average grade of B; and then it declined for those earning A's.
One might want to think about the reason for this. One probably simple and unarguable way to put it might be that success requires a kind of "smarts" that does not and never will correlate with simple IQ or book learning. Or, in a more contemporary lingo, the people with the good grades or high IQs may have one kind of intelligence but they may lack "social intelligence." In fact, IQ (as measured on IQ tests) and social intelligence are quite different attributes of an individual and may not correlate very well with one another.
One last word on intelligence and public office. Of course Dubya was not the only person in politics whose smarts might not have been of the highest. In the Bill Maher film Religulous, there is an interview with a Congressman from a Southern state who admits that there is no intelligence test for public office. On the other hand, Bill Clinton supposedly is very smart, and I don't think anyone doubts that Barack Obama is smart--both exceptions to the generalization stated above. I wonder if it can be coincidence that both of these men, highly intelligent presidents, are Democrats.
Copyright © 2009 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Some Miscellaneous Thoughts
This is going to be somewhat rambling because I have short comments—too short for individual postings—on several subjects.
First: About today's shooter at the National Holocaust Memorial Museum. I don't normally wish anyone dead; but this guy, James von Brunn, has been full of hatred and prejudice and bigotry and resentment all his life; and he is 88 years old. I'd say he's infected and polluted this Earth long enough, so I don't mind bidding him good-bye.
Second: The people who complain about high gas prices should try to remember that, whatever our gas prices are, they're double that in Europe. And, to the lady (and others like her) who complained on the TV news that it costs her $80-plus to fill her gas tank, I'd say, So drive a smaller car. I know that my car won't hold $80 worth of gas. A tank for me, at current prices and here in Chicago, where gas prices are high, would be maybe $40 or so. I just have no sympathy whatsoever for people who want to drive enormous SUVs.
Third: I was thinking today about how we (meaning all humans) are able to rationalize the bad things we do to one another. This guy is this, or he did that, or he said such-and-such. That justifies whatever bad thing we did to him or want to do to him. I think that's a human tendency.
The rationalization that we employ to justify the treatment given someone is that s/he "deserved it." Maybe this means revenge for some wrong done to us, real or perceived. Try to stop and think for a moment about this notion of someone "deserving" one or another form of ill treatment. Certainly very few people are truly all-forgiving; but the degree to which you are likely to feel that some meted-out punishment was "deserved" is a function of your personality. And of course some people are more forgiving than others. Some forgive quickly, others may harbor their grievance for a very long time. Some collective groups (e.g. nations) have harbored ill feelings toward an "enemy" for hundreds of years.
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
First: About today's shooter at the National Holocaust Memorial Museum. I don't normally wish anyone dead; but this guy, James von Brunn, has been full of hatred and prejudice and bigotry and resentment all his life; and he is 88 years old. I'd say he's infected and polluted this Earth long enough, so I don't mind bidding him good-bye.
Second: The people who complain about high gas prices should try to remember that, whatever our gas prices are, they're double that in Europe. And, to the lady (and others like her) who complained on the TV news that it costs her $80-plus to fill her gas tank, I'd say, So drive a smaller car. I know that my car won't hold $80 worth of gas. A tank for me, at current prices and here in Chicago, where gas prices are high, would be maybe $40 or so. I just have no sympathy whatsoever for people who want to drive enormous SUVs.
Third: I was thinking today about how we (meaning all humans) are able to rationalize the bad things we do to one another. This guy is this, or he did that, or he said such-and-such. That justifies whatever bad thing we did to him or want to do to him. I think that's a human tendency.
The rationalization that we employ to justify the treatment given someone is that s/he "deserved it." Maybe this means revenge for some wrong done to us, real or perceived. Try to stop and think for a moment about this notion of someone "deserving" one or another form of ill treatment. Certainly very few people are truly all-forgiving; but the degree to which you are likely to feel that some meted-out punishment was "deserved" is a function of your personality. And of course some people are more forgiving than others. Some forgive quickly, others may harbor their grievance for a very long time. Some collective groups (e.g. nations) have harbored ill feelings toward an "enemy" for hundreds of years.
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Start Your Own Urban Myth
You don't hear the term urban myth too much, anymore, I guess, but probably you know what it means: stories or ideas that probably originated as rumors and became widely accepted. One example that comes to mind is the idea that city sewer systems are inhabited by big alligators because people have flushed unwanted pet baby alligators down the toilet.
I think it's time to organize an effort to start some new urban myths. I will make one contribution, and I urge my readers to contribute theirs by posting them as comments to this post.
Okay, here's mine: You shouldn't put two yellow-colored things in the microwave at the same time as some (unspecified) harm will occur.
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
I think it's time to organize an effort to start some new urban myths. I will make one contribution, and I urge my readers to contribute theirs by posting them as comments to this post.
Okay, here's mine: You shouldn't put two yellow-colored things in the microwave at the same time as some (unspecified) harm will occur.
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Dr. Tiller Worse than Hitler?
An article in the Associated Baptist Press (online) quotes Wiley Drake, the former second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention, who was speaking on his radio show.
Drake says that Dr. George Tiller, the recently murdered abortion doctor, was "far worse than Adolf Hitler."
"This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler," Drake said. "So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead. . . ."
I guess that in his view, a couple thousand fetuses-- as long as, or presumably since, they were going to be born to Christian families--outweigh six million Jews who, after all, were only Jews.
On the other side of things, my attention was called to one Frank Schaeffer, who was quoted in The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html) as saying:
"My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America. "
It's certainly nice to see that one of these loonies has come to his senses. It might be very interesting to read his book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All -- or Almost All -- of It Back.
Drake says that Dr. George Tiller, the recently murdered abortion doctor, was "far worse than Adolf Hitler."
"This man, George Tiller, was far greater in his atrocities than Adolf Hitler," Drake said. "So I am happy. I am glad that he is dead. . . ."
I guess that in his view, a couple thousand fetuses-- as long as, or presumably since, they were going to be born to Christian families--outweigh six million Jews who, after all, were only Jews.
On the other side of things, my attention was called to one Frank Schaeffer, who was quoted in The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html) as saying:
"My late father and I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller the abortion doctor gunned down on Sunday. Until I got out of the religious right (in the mid-1980s) and repented of my former hate-filled rhetoric I was both a leader of the so-called pro-life movement and a part of a Republican Party hate machine masquerading as the moral conscience of America. "
It's certainly nice to see that one of these loonies has come to his senses. It might be very interesting to read his book, Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All -- or Almost All -- of It Back.
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Policeman Is Your Friend (or Not)
The motto of the Chicago Police Department is "We Serve and Protect." Some people have asked who protects us from the police, and it's no joke. (The Romans used to say, "Who guards the guardians?")
Some noteworthy stories in the news lately: About a week ago we had a second (in the space of a few months) case of a Chicago policeman driving drunk, causing a fatal auto accident, and walking away! (I don't think either of these cases has come to trial yet so I'd best not say much about them.)
Two years ago there was a case of an off-duty Chicago policeman who was accused of battery in an occurrence famously caught on video: he attacked a female bartender who refused to serve him any more drinks. He was convicted of battery yesterday (but not yet sentenced). His defense was that he acted in self-defense as the bartender pushed him when he tried to come behind the bar--I guess to get that drink for himself when she would not let him have it. Since the woman in question is 5'3" and weighs 125 lb, and the policeman weights just double that, the self-defense plea was perfectly ludicrous.
Plus we have the famous case of Drew Peterson, now a former police sergeant in suburban Bollingbrook who was indicted in the murder of his third wife and is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife.
Also, there is the story of a body that was just found that might turn out to be the spouse of a police officer. This may turn out to be another woman killed by her policeman husband (again, I must not comment further).
All these are cases of police officers within, say, 30 miles of where I live. In Chicago and certain of its suburbs there have been, over the years, many stories of police corruption and bad cops who were in league with criminals and often committed crimes themselves--for example, a ring of thieves that stole TVs included several cops.
There are good and nice cops who truly want to help the public and have no animus against anyone but bad guys. And, obviously, there are bad ones. I have often suspected that at least some men become policemen so as to be able to throw their weight around. Let's just hope that that first category is much larger than the category with the bad eggs in it.
An addendum: I'm not quite the only one who has some misgivings about policemen or police forces. Here is an article about police tasering and using pepper spray on a deaf and handicapped man:
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/07/28/police-taser-deaf-disabled-man/?icid=mainhtmlws-maindl1link6http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bvblackspin.com%2F2009%2F07%2F28%2Fpolice-taser-deaf-disabled-man%2F
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
Some noteworthy stories in the news lately: About a week ago we had a second (in the space of a few months) case of a Chicago policeman driving drunk, causing a fatal auto accident, and walking away! (I don't think either of these cases has come to trial yet so I'd best not say much about them.)
Two years ago there was a case of an off-duty Chicago policeman who was accused of battery in an occurrence famously caught on video: he attacked a female bartender who refused to serve him any more drinks. He was convicted of battery yesterday (but not yet sentenced). His defense was that he acted in self-defense as the bartender pushed him when he tried to come behind the bar--I guess to get that drink for himself when she would not let him have it. Since the woman in question is 5'3" and weighs 125 lb, and the policeman weights just double that, the self-defense plea was perfectly ludicrous.
Plus we have the famous case of Drew Peterson, now a former police sergeant in suburban Bollingbrook who was indicted in the murder of his third wife and is a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife.
Also, there is the story of a body that was just found that might turn out to be the spouse of a police officer. This may turn out to be another woman killed by her policeman husband (again, I must not comment further).
All these are cases of police officers within, say, 30 miles of where I live. In Chicago and certain of its suburbs there have been, over the years, many stories of police corruption and bad cops who were in league with criminals and often committed crimes themselves--for example, a ring of thieves that stole TVs included several cops.
There are good and nice cops who truly want to help the public and have no animus against anyone but bad guys. And, obviously, there are bad ones. I have often suspected that at least some men become policemen so as to be able to throw their weight around. Let's just hope that that first category is much larger than the category with the bad eggs in it.
An addendum: I'm not quite the only one who has some misgivings about policemen or police forces. Here is an article about police tasering and using pepper spray on a deaf and handicapped man:
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2009/07/28/police-taser-deaf-disabled-man/?icid=mainhtmlws-maindl1link6http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bvblackspin.com%2F2009%2F07%2F28%2Fpolice-taser-deaf-disabled-man%2F
Copyright © Richard Stein 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
A Memoir - 1990
In 1990 I was working with this young guy from British Columbia, Canada. Let's call him Barr Beadwell. Barr was a strawberry blond with a chest that seemed to go on for acres, and a bubble butt (he had to have pants specially tailored to fit that butt). When he'd been out in the sun, his eyebrows got bleached to where they just about disappeared. As you can guess, that all added up to "attractive."
One thing that struck me: One time Barr asked me to mail a letter he'd written to his parents. It wasn't addressed to "Mr and Mrs Sam Beadwell," or "Sam and Catherine Beadwell," but "Mom and Dad Beadwell." Kind of childish.
Barr was in the process of getting married. Oh, I guess the way to put it is that he was engaged and his fiancée was planning their wedding. Since I worked with Barr for nine months, the wedding took place while Barr and I were working together, and I was invited.
I should mention that Barr and he fiancée both belonged to some sect that, Barr told me, was simply called Bible Study. No doubt Barr was brought up in that group in British Columbia; but I guess the bride was a local gal, and the wedding was to be in a church here in the Chicago area.
That wedding was a bit of an experience for me. There was one African-American person in attendance, and that was the boss that Barr and I worked for, who came with his wife. Otherwise, as I looked around, a totally white audience.
I'd gone by myself, and I was the only single person there. (Unlike a character in a movie I recently saw, it never occurred to me to get a date for this wedding.) The ushers—all very young guys, naturally, friends of Barr's—were in the habit of offering an arm and escorting the female half of every arriving couple to their seats. They didn't know what to do in my case, and were visibly distressed!
The sermon part of the wedding contained a lot about the wife's pledging obedience to her husband—all very traditional (that is, pre-feminist) gender roles. I was quite surprised. You know, in this day and age. . . . I'd never met the bride, but I had the impression she was, shall we say, spirited, or had a strong personality. I have to wonder how long she might have gone on buying into that "subordinate to thy husband" shit.
Copyright © 2009 Richard Stein
One thing that struck me: One time Barr asked me to mail a letter he'd written to his parents. It wasn't addressed to "Mr and Mrs Sam Beadwell," or "Sam and Catherine Beadwell," but "Mom and Dad Beadwell." Kind of childish.
Barr was in the process of getting married. Oh, I guess the way to put it is that he was engaged and his fiancée was planning their wedding. Since I worked with Barr for nine months, the wedding took place while Barr and I were working together, and I was invited.
I should mention that Barr and he fiancée both belonged to some sect that, Barr told me, was simply called Bible Study. No doubt Barr was brought up in that group in British Columbia; but I guess the bride was a local gal, and the wedding was to be in a church here in the Chicago area.
That wedding was a bit of an experience for me. There was one African-American person in attendance, and that was the boss that Barr and I worked for, who came with his wife. Otherwise, as I looked around, a totally white audience.
I'd gone by myself, and I was the only single person there. (Unlike a character in a movie I recently saw, it never occurred to me to get a date for this wedding.) The ushers—all very young guys, naturally, friends of Barr's—were in the habit of offering an arm and escorting the female half of every arriving couple to their seats. They didn't know what to do in my case, and were visibly distressed!
The sermon part of the wedding contained a lot about the wife's pledging obedience to her husband—all very traditional (that is, pre-feminist) gender roles. I was quite surprised. You know, in this day and age. . . . I'd never met the bride, but I had the impression she was, shall we say, spirited, or had a strong personality. I have to wonder how long she might have gone on buying into that "subordinate to thy husband" shit.
Copyright © 2009 Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
