2001-02-06 - 5:48pm

Who's Who Cheat Sheet
Who I Read

On the internal soundtrack: That damn Buffalo Springfield song again.

Two miscellaneous follow-ups to yesterday's Popeye's discussion:

1. What if Popeye's just genuinely wants to support that program? And it's just an unfortunate coincidence that their product happens to be part of an inappropriate stereotype? Does that mean that Popeye's should refrain from sponsoring such programs? (Poindexter, btw, thinks it's very unlikely that this is what happened.) From another angle, does your opinion of this change if the marketing/advertising person in charge at Popeye's is black?

2. Barring vegetarians or greasephobes, how many white folks in this country don't like fried chicken? Isn't it one of those things that almost everybody likes, like chocolate? It's one of the dumber stereotypes I've ever heard of, if for no other reason than not being specific enough. Seems to me that Popeye's can't lose no matter what they choose to sponsor.

Speaking of chocolate, a guy who used to work with me was extremely surprised to find out that I don't particularly like chocolate. He said, "Don't they revoke your womanhood membership card for that?"

What the hell is this with Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman? They've separated? I'm disappointed. They had been together for 10 years and seemed to be the best of friends. In all the Tom Cruise interviews I've read, it's Nic this, Nic that. Where'd that go?

I'd like to know the real reason they separated. Their excuse, apparently, is that their careers kept them apart. Well then, wouldn't the logical solution be to try to spend more time together and work on the relationship? Apparently not. Maybe the problem with being apart is that one of them met somebody else.

These long-term marriages that don't work out baffle me the most. In most of the divorces I know of, the couple should never have been married in the first place. Things end within five years, usually. With these long-term marriages, though, it worked out for so long, what's preventing it from working out now? People don't change THAT much. Is it boredom? Was there a problem all along and they finally reached the end of their rope?

I think I'm going to get my legs waxed. But I'm sort of chicken. It's a little weird having some stranger touch my legs. I suppose it's like going to the doctor, which doesn't faze (F-A-Z-E!) me much.

Anybody out there ever had it done? I gave it a try at home, and was not terribly put off by the pain, but got exasperated because my skill level was nonexistent and after half an hour I'd only removed about 1/4 of the hair on each calf. I'm told that professionals can do all of both legs in 10-15 minutes. That sounds wonderful.

Plus, I can read a book while they're doing it, thus eliminating the boredom factor. That's always good.

So, Poindexter and I are baffled by people who act on their emotions without thinking. We almost never do this. We're disgustingly rational people. I don't think either of us has ever made a life decision without thinking it through.

I have wondered sometimes if this makes me a cold, unfeeling person. Then I thought that was nuts, because I feel stuff all the time -- I get mad sometimes, I love my husband more than I ever imagined loving someone, I get excited about little things on daily basis, sometimes I feel miserable and cry, stuff like that. So that doesn't explain it.

And not only that, but I have made decisions based on how I FELT about something (choosing to enter a long-distance relationship with Poindexter, not to mention marrying him, would be examples of that). The difference, I guess, is that I stopped to weigh pros and cons and make sure I wasn't doing something that would negatively affect my life.

I was going to write about how being rational is about stepping back and thinking about your emotions before you act on them (certinly not about ignoring them altogether). As luck would have it, someone else -- Nick Wiltgen, bless his heart -- has already done it for me:

... it seems that many people have a rather limited conception of what it means to be "rational." Perhaps they envision reason as a cold and computational mode of living, with emotions excluded as part of an opposing psychological pole. But if reason is the faculty of identifying and integrating what one perceives, then those automatic integrations called emotions -- and emotions are, after all, our lightning-fast responses to what we perceive, -- must be incorporated into any full-bodied conception of reason.

In short, to ignore your emotions is not rational. That does not mean that acting blindly on emotion is good; it means that acknowledging and accepting your emotions, and improving yourself psychologically when those emotions are an obstacle to your personal success, are all part of a rational lifestyle. It also means that wild laughter and teary-eyed sentimentality have their place in a rational lifestyle. Being rational isn't just a matter of looking out at the world and analyzing it; it also means looking inside yourself, understanding, and articulating your own emotions, and integrating them into a consistent, flourishing, satisfying way of life.

Nick has all kinds of fascinating stuff on his site, btw. I have to write a fan mail soon. Ever since I heard that feedback is payment for the enjoyment you get out of personal web sites, I've tried to write e-mails when I enjoy a site. The hardest part, though, is that it's so damn hard to express clearly what I like about it. I can't just say "Dude, your site rocks." That's not satisfying feedback. I want to tell them WHY, and it's sometimes damn near impossible to articulate.

Practice will help, I suppose. It usually does.

previous index next