Holding nothing back…

Archive for October 2008


Van Twirlers Suspended for “risque” song

For some reason, WordPress won’t let me use the embed code from this video, so I’ve linked it.  Although what I want to talk about isn’t the song choice, who screwed up in allowing the song to be used, whether or not the routine should have been stopped, etc.

It’s the comments about the twirlers posted here.

“CSS” says:

If there is a crime here, it’s that the twirler interviewed on Ch. 5 should lose a few pounds before going out on the field in that costume.

That is followed shortly by “Shayla” saying:

Wow what happened to twirlers being thin?

Then “Van Vandal Mom” says:

And another thing noticing all the comments on the weight. If you are practicing as you should how come you don’t loose weight, You sre suppose to practice all week , all summer.. What happened to that. that will get you in shape. What they need is to bring back the good line that had 7 on it a couple years ago they were all awsome and some of thenm went to state through the years, Great twirlers there and they didn’t disrespect athority.AND THEY LOOKED GOOD !!!!! And they could all TWIRL !!!And they worked for it to look that good too. And you could learn from that they respected the sponsors and band directors and priciple and the school and them selfs.

Van Vandal Mom assumes that the girls can’t be practicing like they should or they wouldn’t have any extra weight on them, and since they *do* have “extra weight” they “don’t look good.”  Sheesh!  And we wonder why girls the world over are starving themselves trying to be thin! 

When is it ever thin enough?

When does talent and/or skill outweigh (pun intended) appearance?

When do we get to respect ourselves no matter what our weight is?

When do we get to EXPECT respect from others no matter what our weight is?

How about NOW?  TODAY? 

I say:

If the only thing you can say against someone is that they “need to lose a few pounds,” you don’t have anything worthwhile to say.

BullshitMI is NOT an indicator of talent.

Practice time is not indicated by jeans size.

Self-esteem cannot be measured in pounds, kilos, or stones.

That girl in the interview?  Her name is Jordan Downey, and she is just as cute as can be! 

I finally sat down and watched the original version of The Women. Taking into consideration the fact that it was filmed in 1939 and reflects the values of the era, it was ok. Yes, just ok.

First, Joan Crawford as Crystal was definitely AWESOME! Blew Mendes’ performance of Crystal completely and totally OUT of the water. After watching Crawford in the role of the conniving, gold-digging, bitchy Other Woman, nobody could have lived up to that performance. Joan was sexy without being comical, unlike Mendes. Her delivery of the line “If something I’m wearing doesn’t please Stephen, I take it off” was just p e r f e c t.

Meg Ryan’s Mary Haines was much more likable for me, but that was more a function of the plotline than of Norma Shearer’s acting (which was admittedly over the top, but that was typical for the era). The 1939 version of Mary was just… Blah. Shearer’s Mary just isn’t anything without her husband. Her original trip to the spa where she found out about Stephen’s affair was to get done over “for Stephen.” From that point on, Mary is pining for Stephen. She finally starts to get some life back after finding out from her sleepy daughter that Stephen isn’t really happy with Crystal (whom he’s now been married to for nearly 2 years). Everything Mary does is for Stephen, because it’s what she thinks STEPHEN wants, what she thinks will make STEPHEN happy.  Blech. There’s no moment of realization that if she isn’t happy by herself, she’ll never *really* be happy with Stephen.  The only reason for Stephen to want her back is because Crystal is a high maintenance bitch and Mary is a pushover. Mary hasn’t grown as a person, hasn’t done anything to improve herself, nothing. She’s basically continued her life as she was before, just without Stephen.

ALL of the women in the movie do everything they do for the men in their lives. Even when they end up getting divorces. They are catty, bitchy, gossipy, wimpy, superficial, gold-digging, keeping-up-with-the-jones’s, housewives who are nothing without their men. They are boring, and from the things they talk about their men doing behind their backs, their men are bored with them also.

Yes, I get that the movie was made in 1939, two years before the U.S. entered WWII and women were pretty much forced to enter the workforce. I get that the entire world was radically different then. For my purposes here, I am speaking of my ability to relate to the characters in the modern version vs. the characters in the 1939 version.

Oh, the 1939 version definitely had it’s moments. I just had a much more difficult time relating to it and the women portrayed in it than to the modern version and the women in it. Blame it on the fact that I’m entirely too young to remember when women like that (with the exception of the money!) were the norm, but I know LOTS of women like the ones in the recent version. Call me shallow. Say whatever you will. I just liked the modern version better, by a long shot. *shrug*