twixt and shout!
did anyone else read lev grossman's article in time magazine, entitled "grow up? NOT SO FAST!" (jan 24, 2005)? paul sent it to me last year with the ominous note: "this is about us." translation: this article is about people who are putting off adult responsibilities, mortgages, and marriage, while taking time to figure out their life path. last night's post on the decline of black marriages made me think about it, and i looked it up again this morning and gave it a thorough perusal (notice the correct usage of the word peruse, as in "careful examination" and not "quick skim").
the twixter meme is fascinating, particularly since i have many first- and second-hand experiences to draw from. once finals are over i will revisit this... though, i will throw out there that the commodification of the bachelor degree might have something to do with people postponing adulthood. more to come!
ps. if you want to peruse the article as well, holla, and i'll send it to you via email. (i hope i didn't just break any copyright laws by saying that--it would suck to get deported over this)
***
04.01.06 update
during climbing yesterday, i asked ethan what he thought about twixters and why they (we) exist. his response: too many options and opportunities available due to the affluence and success of the previous generation (our parents). i'm inclined to agree with him... last semester, i read a behavioral research study conducted by a columbia professor on whether or not more is less. that is, do more options translate into less satisfaction? apparently, the answer is, yes... on average, when people are presented with more options to choose from, they are less satisfied with the choice that they eventually select (if they do, in fact, select a choice). i definitely think this line of thinking is worth pursuing.
any other thoughts? i will be taking an informal survey soon
marriage: out of vogue?
when my friend bo cowgill first sent me this washington post article, entitled "marriage is for white people," i got extremely excited because it appeared to be about the cost and benefits of marriage for the black female, which appeals to my inner freakonomist.
however, upon closer inspection, i'm confused. while the author does have statistics to back up her claim that marriage is on the decline for black males and females, the reasons she cites do not seem specific to the african-american experience:
"Among African Americans, the desire for marriage seems to have a different trajectory for women and men. My observation is that black women in their twenties and early thirties want to marry and commit at a time when black men their age are more likely to enjoy playing the field. As the woman realizes that a good marriage may not be as possible or sustainable as she would like, her focus turns to having a baby, or possibly improving her job status, perhaps by returning to school or investing more energy in her career.
As men mature, and begin to recognize the benefits of having a roost and roots (and to feel the consequences of their risky bachelor behavior), they are more willing to marry and settle down. By this time, however, many of their female peers are satisfied with the lives they have constructed and are less likely to settle for marriage to a man who doesn't bring much to the table."
take out the word "black" and this trajectory applies to a good many other demographics, if not a whole generation of people. is the author implying that black marriages are on the decline because of the quality of black men in relation to the black woman's improved socio-economic position ?
"Indeed, he may bring too much to the table: children and their mothers from previous relationships, limited earning power, and the fallout from years of drug use, poor health care, sexual promiscuity. In other words, for the circumspect black woman, marriage may not be a business deal that offers sufficient return on investment."
i'm dissatisfied with this analysis, partly because i would like to see some substantive data, but mainly because, by the author's own admission, this trend in marriage does not seem race-specific--other demographics also show a decline in marriages. given that, i'd like to know why black americans are "leading the charge," so to speak. what's their trajectory relative to other demographics? i'm also really curious about the author's statement that "Often what happens in black America is a sign of what the rest of America can eventually expect." thoughts?
***
n.b. can we really have a discussion about marriage coached entirely in terms of business deals and ROI, and without any mention of love and companionship as legitimate reasons for getting married? (i.e. does my inner romantic trump my inner freakonomist?)
zing
this is the funniest email i've written, to date. see how i managed to incorporate a reference to chuck norris? genius. ten points for me.
***
todd,
i like the charming nonchalance of this email (below). it was as if i had written: "i had petit fours and tea with your friends from yale. it was lovely." not: "i almost had a close encounter with a boston college fanatic twice my size because of my (weak) allegience via association to villanova." good thing he didn't punch me, though, because my roundhouse kick is f*cking deadly. :) no matter, i will keep the random acts of violence to myself from now on.
ciao,
kiki
Yo,
Send me your address again so I can send you that check...$138, correct?
Todd
the blog's been christened!
props to elie for inspiring my brand-spanking new blog name.
why did the coyote cross the uws?
to get to central park, clearly. i'm a little sad they caught hal. i like the idea of wild animals in urban settings. i'm extremely curious as to how hal crossed from riverside park to central park without being seen, but i assume he was wily enough to follow behind someone and pretend to be an unleashed dog.
(paul, i dedicate this post to you.)
the force of destiny
hm. last week a couple of us decided to enculturate ourselves by attending the opera at the met. not just any opera: verdi's la forza del destino, which is apparently the opera for the serious opera-tor. four hours long. i was entirely expecting to be moved to tears, much like julia roberts a la pretty woman, when edward takes her to go see don giovanni. i even dressed up and wore stilettos. alas, no tears, though i was moved to a fit of giggles when leonora died in the most melodramatic fashion. i didn't NOT like it, and i was certainly impressed by the vocal talents of the performers. but i don't think that its true that, as edward lewis says, it is possible to appreciate the opera without also understanding what the performers are singing. next time, i am going to do some serious research prior to attending. the met has a cool feature in the seats that provide "subtitles" but it definitely distracted from the experience.
ballers
i will shoot my big toe off if the pistons lose to the sixers tonight. i was at madison square garden when they lost to the knicks. and, a week before, they lost to--excuse me--were routed by--the wizards. "wha' happun'd???" if the pistons have an achilles tendon it would be over-confidence. i am turning the tv off now, despite the fact that the sixers are catching up (24-26), and i will put my trust in big ben. godspeed!
***
update
my big toe remains intact. pistons win.
definition: dive bar
okay, this site isn't really going to be all about dive bars. but i still think it's a noble cause, so i'm laying out criteria. up until now i've been operating under the "i know it when i see it" paradigm, i need to infuse a little more rigor into my research, starting with a working definition. i'm drawn to the definition offered by urban dictionary (below) because, in specifying "regular clientele" in "neighborhood pubs," it taps into a theory i'm formulating around dive bars and social capital (a la "bowling alone"). this argument will be much more cogent once i present my case study on the lotus bar and eric.
Urban Dictionary
1. Dive bar
A well-worn, unglamorous bar, often serving a cheap, simple selection of drinks to a regular clientele.
The term can describe anything from a comfortable-but-basic neighborhood pub to the nastiest swill-slinging hole.
You don't need to dress up; we're just going to the dive bar down the street.
Man, that place is such a dive bar... Don't go in unless you plan to burn your clothes afterwards.
growlings
(repost from friendster blog)
for the second time in two weeks, my attempt to go climbing has been foiled. ethan and i headed over to chelsea piers today to check out their wall (which is significantly tiny compared to the rock in a2) and with hopes of getting a belay refresher and some climbs in. instead, we got a tour and a sales pitch. i have to admit, the facilities are amazing, and i'm especially tempted by the list of yoga, pilates, and dance classes offered--in addition to access to the wall. but, the membership fee is a hunk-o-change, and i can only really justify it if i go 4 or 5 times per week. which i can't do. not until after april at least. *sigh*
i miss the rock.
(sidenote: while looking for the sports center, ethan and i accidentally wandered into the law and order casting building! apparently the set for the shows are right there, adjacent to gym. so exciting! no sign of christopher meloni though, alas.)
***
semester deliverables (why i will be incommunicado in april):
psych aspects: annotated bibliography, 10-page paper on semco
org dynamics: 15-20 page paper on accenture, final exam
group dynamics: 8-page paper on intergroup dynamics, 5-7 page paper on projective identification, conference, 3-page paper on conference.
adv functions: business plan, power point, business law exam
startingbloc: memo, conference, power point
critical thinking/critical theory: 5-page paper
***
blog name: i know this is going to keep me up at nights. suggestions are welcome.
lord
okay. i think this will be my final resting place. will be moving posts here from friendster. and from the old site... who would have thought finding a host would be so hard? it's because i have commitment issues, i know.
