Last night, after hearing many a good thing about it, I went to see “Bridesmaids”. It didn’t take me long to realize that I’d made a mistake. Before digging in too far, let me say that there have been a number of popular movies I couldn’t get into. “American Pie”, “Knocked Up”, “The Hangover”, etc. That’s just not the sort of humour that appeals to me.

“Bridesmaids” felt to me like any of the other films that rely almost exclusively on crass and puerile jokes to tickle the audience. It might have been funnier had I not gotten over the giggles that dick and fart jokes used to instill in me when I was a kid. (Granted, there is a good one now and again, but this wasn’t it.) It felt like yet another comedy movie that was trying to push the limits, but felt that this time it should be even funnier because it’s women engaging in the behaviour. Not to give anything away, but there was an entire sequence that involved a group of women throwing up and crapping themselves. I wish I was making that up.

The story itself is rather vanilla and all of the supporting characters were very one-dimensional caricatures. Even the characters with any sense of depth weren’t that engaging. Normally I adore watching Kristin Wiig, but even she couldn’t save the film for me. (Despite also having co-written it.) Overall the jokes seemed forced and entirely over the top. There was no middle ground. The few meaningful moments in the film were quickly overshadowed by another juvenile joke.

This movie wasn’t female empowering or a representation of “girl power”. It was more like a statement that women can engage in potty jokes too. Then again, I have a feeling I’m going to be in the minority on this one as I was the only woman out of seven I saw it with that thought it was a terrible film. In this instance, I don’t mind being the odd-woman out. “Bridesmaids” was definitely not for me.

-

Anyone who has watched the original Twilight Zone series has likely seen the episode “Number 12 Looks Just Like You”. It’s an unforgettable episode that satirizes people’s extreme need to fit in and be a part of the crowd. It’s also one of the first things that sprang to my mind when reading an article about a seven year old getting plastic surgery because her ears stick out.

The story features a girl named Samantha who is only seven years old. She has cup ears, which means they stick out rather than running parallel to her head in a “normal” way. The operating surgeon used words like “abnormal” in the description of Samantha’s ears and said that he was “fixing” them. The reason for this “fix”? To prevent bullying. The mother, not the girl, was worried that her daughter would get picked on. She cited fears that her kid would be called “Dumbo” or “big ears”.

Here’s the thing, and the sad fact of life I think we’ve all experienced: kids are going to pick on other kids. If it wasn’t her ears, then it was going to be something else. Children are cruel, no doubt about it. There will be something else down the road for her. If not her ears, then maybe freckles, or how she walks, or they don’t like her Star Wars water bottle. However, I should think the hope is that you learn to be a stronger person for all of the harassment you have to deal with in life. All that getting surgery will do is teach her that an adequate solution to any perceived problem is that she has to be the one to change. What if she grows up and thinks something is wrong with her nose, or that her jaw line is funny? The fact that the surgeon kept using the word “fix” implies that something was “broken” or “wrong”.

What kills me is the mother says herself that kids are cruel and mean. If she knows this, then she probably knows that kids will tease and bully each other over even the smallest infraction. Be supportive of your child. Teach them that they don’t have to change to please other people. Tell them they have nothing to be embarrassed or ashamed of.

Furthermore, the surgeon said he wouldn’t recommend plastic surgery for a child if it was simply cosmetic, but I don’t see what else this would count as. Samantha’s ears were not a health risk. They weren’t a mole covering half of her face, they weren’t a cleft palette, or even a hare lip. I used to volunteer with an organization that helped low-income children with health impacting abnormalities. Dealing with cupped ears would have seemed liked a blessing compared to the issues I saw.

I will also say that the story made me heartsick for very personal reasons. All of those monikers for kids with big ears? Yeah, I heard and was called all of them. I, too, have cupped ears. They stick out like sails trying to catch a breeze. I’ve covered them with my hair. I’ve been frustrated with them. But you know what? They are MY ears. I have come to understand that there is nothing wrong with them. They are not broken, and they are not something to be ashamed of. And what’s more, I think Samantha’s ears were beautiful too. I look at her before and after pictures, and I think the after is what looks awkward.

The plastic surgeon theorized that kids with ears like mine and Samantha’s might end up being less popular, shyer or that it will “harm their developing self-identity”. Anyone who knows me will tell you that is bunk. Sure, I was not popular in school, but it was for very different reasons. My self-identity is no less strong for having ears that aren’t like everyone else’s. EVERYONE has something about themselves that they don’t like. We are a culture that is so obsessed in the perceived ideal that we overlook the beauty of uniqueness.

Samantha would have grown into her ears. I know I did. It took me a long time, but I can finally wear my hair up and be okay with showing the world my ears because they are just fine.



UPDATE: A few people have pointed out a similar story about an eight year old girl whose mother is giving her botox injections. I’d heard about this the other day, but for those interested, here is a link to that story.

-

As you may have surmised from the title, this is my review of “Thor”, the latest in a series of films centering around the members Marvel’s Avengers. I’m going to try and avoid spoilers in this review, so I won’t delve too much into the plot. Suffice to say, Thor is a being of god-like power that ends up trapped powerless on Earth until he can earn back what was taken from him. Romance, epic battles, loss, redemption. All the things that make a good superhero movie.

Overall, I was highly impressed with the film. So far, none of the recent Marvel Studio’s films have managed to disappoint me, but “Thor” can truly be judged on it’s own merits and needn’t be held up for comparison to “Iron Man” or “Hulk”. While it exists in the same universe, it is a movie that can stand on its own two, heavily armoured feet.

I have to admit, of the four lead Avengers (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor and Captain America), Thor is the one I knew the least about. I knew he carried a kick ass hammer and that he was from Asgard, but that was about it. For this reason, I’m glad the film spends quite a bit of time giving us the back story on where he came from and how the realms outside of Earth are laid out.

I could see this film coming off as a bit daunting to those also unfamiliar with the comics as it has a lot of elements and can be complex at times. However, it manages to keep from being confusing or disengaging. This is thanks in part to some very wonderful performances, especially from Chris Hemsworth as the title character. Prior to this, I’d only seen him briefly in “Star Trek” and worried about his ability to carry a film. My fears were unwarranted. He manages to achieve the kind of humour you’d expect from someone who is essentially a god that is now stuck in the mortal realm. There is also a depth to his performance that makes the character very likable and believable.

I also really enjoyed the performances of Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgård, Kat Dennings and a host of other actors. (I could have done with seeing more of Sif and the warriors three.) Hopkins has been accused a lot lately of phoning in his roles, but I think he was an excellent choice for Odin. He brings a weight and wisdom that the role required. On the flip side, my personal pick for weakest link would have been Natalie Portman. However, I’m admittedly not her biggest fan.

The other thing that makes this movie a little weaker than I’d like were some elements of the character development. As the movie already weights in at two hours, I’m sure sacrifices had to be made. A smoother romantic buildup would have been appreciated though. Also, Thor’s character arc seemed a little stilted. It makes me wonder just how much might have ended up on the cutting room floor.

I must say, one of the things that really sold this movie for me were the effects. As much as I am into strong character development and a stable plot (both of which this film has), the overall look and feel really blew me away. The first time we see Asgard amounts to a truly stunning sequence. (Warner Brothers better make damn sure they do at least as good of a job with Oa in “Green Lantern”.) The film is also careful to seamlessly mix in practical and special effects so that there is a tangibility to everything. The movie really captures the beautiful and mythical feel it needed to do the story justice; all the way from the tops of the towers of Asgard, down to the beautiful costume designs.

While I did mention that this film can stand alone, it is still a part of the Avenger’s buildup and has references built in accordingly. (It may even take a few viewings to catch them all.) Also, there is a particularly funny cameo from Stan “The Man” Lee. They were even so bold as to give him a line this time.

I’ve heard a lot of positive and negative murmurings about this film, but honestly, many Marvel films haven’t been to everyone’s liking. For what it’s worth, I think “Thor” is a fun and exciting movie worthy of the Marvel label. In fact, I’m going to celebrate Thor’s Day tomorrow with my third viewing.

-

Today I posted a comment on Twitter that read:

Hey, Bank of America online mortgage payment system: die in a fire.

To my surprise, a little later I got a note from their online Twitter support team asking:

Were you able to resolve your issue? Anything I can do to help?

Being in the bad mood that I was, I told them:

Not unless you can fix the website so that the login process works properly. I had problems on two different browsers.

And:

I’m also shocked at the “convenience” charges for online and phone payment. A check is the only way to not get charged extra.

Unfortunately, Twitter’s 140 character limit prevented me from going into as much detail as I would have liked. In fact, the idea that they contacted me on Twitter to ask if they could help actually upset me more. I’ll explain why…

Firstly, let me say that Bank of America’s website is nigh inoperable. To date, I have used three different web browsers, and none have made a difference. The first obstacle is the login process. Look, I get that you want to protect me from those who would do evil to my account, but two or three login attempts should not result in an error telling me there have been too many attempts and I need to change my password. I, like many other people, have any number of online accounts. With these come a variety of usernames and passwords dependent on what was available at the time and the password requirements. So, yeah, sometimes I have a stupid moment and can’t remember my account info and am too lazy to try and dig it out of my e-mail. I’ve never had another site lock me out so fast, let alone one that doesn’t even put your username and password entry slots on the same damn page.

Then, once I do get in to my account, I have to go though the madhouse of options just to pay my damn mortgage. You main account page shouldn’t look like it would be at home with a search and find puzzle. Then to even make the payment I had to click on just about every button in the universe.

You keep pushing the convenience of your site on my monthly mortgage bills and tout it on your main page. I have sour news for you: it is in no way, shape or form “convenient” for me. Yet, you jerks somehow think that even though I jumped through all of your flaming hoops that I should pay a “convenience” charge for the privilege of putting up with your online nightmare. If I think about paying by phone, that’s right, another “convenience” charge. While easier than your online system, still none too awesome. The ONLY way I can avoid your charges is to write out a check every month. (I’m also pretty certain dealing with checks is highly inconvenient to you versus an online payment.) So, let’s see, 44 cents versus 6 dollar online fee or the 15 dollars or so phone fee, what do you think I’ll pick? If I wanted to pay for a headache, I would have bought a hammer and bashed myself in the skull. Besides, I’m paying my fucking mortgage, it already isn’t cheap. Do you think I’m made of money?

So you have a site that is utterly ineffective and a surcharge that makes me feel like I’m giving you permission to fuck me over, but you have a Twitter team policing for unhappy customers? Really? Couldn’t you pay them to, you know, fix the website? Or is my 15 charge going to pay what is likely their minimum wage based paychecks?

I didn’t pick you. You were what my mortgage broker set me up with and I had no idea how bad of a decision that would be. Let me also say that I know what a good bank is like. I am fortunate enough to be using a great bank that has fast, friendly and effective customer service. I call and get a real person that is happy to talk to me (or is faking it, but I’ll take what I can get). There are no crazy fees, they have an easy to navigate site that works. I could maybe have lower credit card interest or lower car insurance somewhere else, but you know what? They have EARNED my loyalty. They treat me like a person, and not like a piggy bank.

I don’t blame your online Twitter team. They are just doing their jobs. I get that. It is your company that I take issue with. A quick Google search will reveal that I am far from being alone in this. It’s pretty bad news when people have registered a sites with names like www.bankofamericasucks.com, and www.ihateboa.com. Maybe they spared themselves your “convenience” fees to pay the domain name charges.

I stand by what I said. Your online system can die in a fire.
-

There has been a lot of hubbub here and there on the net when it comes to nerds who also happen to be attractive females, and even models. As I’ve been told that I count as one of these, I felt like I needed to say my piece. True, I have written on similar topics in the past, but I think there’s a message that bears repeating: you don’t have to be what other people think you should be.

Many people are so quick to lump others into easy to manage categories. That person is a jock, that one’s a diva, over there is a goth. While it may make it easy to sort things in your mind, I believe everyone is more than a singular, stereotyped label. This is not to say that labels are a bad thing. I do consider myself a nerd, but that’s not all that I am, either. Labels sometimes help us to find and communicate with those that are like minded. As has been noted in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, once the base requirements for survival have been met, they are immediately followed by an instinct to seek out a group and gain a level of acceptance amongst your peers. This is how society survives and these are the connective tissues that keep us together and help us build meaningful relationships.

While this system of categorizing can be helpful, it also brings with it a set of problems. With labels comes stereotyping and often a narrow sense of what these titles translate to. I know a lot of people who fit into categories thought to be paradoxical, including the marriage of the categories “nerd” and “attractive female”. Nerds, by many, are still perceived as socially awkward, and often unattractive men that frequently take up residence in their mother’s basement. For a while, this may have been a pretty apt description, but as with all things, it has evolved. Nerds are no longer regulated to the outskirts of society. In fact, it seems that nowadays it’s hip to be square.

However, there is still a lack of parity between nerds when they happen to be men, versus when they happen to be women. There is this perception that women either can’t be nerds or, if they are, they are never going to be on the same level as men. Now, if you’re an attractive female and a nerd, well, that seems highly improbable to people. If they do decide you might be as nerdy as you claim, there is often a testing phase that comes next. I experienced this first hand at an event a week or so ago. I was with a group of nerdy women who also model, and we were treated to a barrage of questions intended to make us prove our “geek cred”. While a part of me found it amusing, another part found it insulting that we couldn’t be taken at our word. (Yes, I am aware some of this also occurs on the male side of things, but in my personal experience, it is far less severe.)

Sadly, this sort of trouble comes not only from the outside, but within. There is a strange tendency for people that identify with any sort of group to claim that many outsiders are “posers”. There’s a sense of exclusivity when you are part of what appears to be a minority. The issue is that until they start being more inclusive, nothing is going to change. The in-fighting only serves to schism things further. I’ve seen a lot of girl versus girl hating, and it needs to stop.

There is also the argument that you shouldn’t need to prove anything, or a self-proclamation of geekhood is a call for your legitimacy to be questioned. While, no, you don’t NEED to prove anything, there are benefits to doing so. For example, until the media realizes there are more women wanting shows like “Game of Thrones” or films like “Lord of the RIngs”, they’re going to continue to cater to male audiences first and foremost. Same goes for video games, comics, merchandising, etc. If we don’t have a voice, then these things will never change.

There is also the discussion of why can’t we all just be nerds/geeks without the male or female designation. That goes back to my last point. I’d love for everyone to live under one heading, but geeks and nerds are not a one size fits all group. I can think of many occasions where I would have gladly bought shirts for a film only to find that there was nothing being produced in a more breast conscious fashion. There have been games where I would have preferred some more gender-balanced options. There is a legitimate reason for all of the outcry from geek girls on the web.

Stereotypes are based on sweeping generalizations of one group or another, and there is usually some basis in truth. They are often deeply ingrained in the social consciousness, and they are not easy to change. However, I believe that if we work to change the perceptions and keep the conversations going, that we can be there to witness the shift.

To all of my fellow nerd/geek girls: keep talking and discussing and breaking out of the box to which you have been assigned. Only together will we see any real change.

*Please note that I use the words nerd and geek as synonyms. I know that not everyone agrees that they are the same, but to my mind they are so close as to be relatively interchangeable.

-