Have you ever been alone in a crowded room when I'm here with you?

Have you ever been alone in a crowded room; well I'm here with you...

Bored and reluctant to go to bed? Why not watch an earwax-removal process in extreme close up? Cause that's not gross at all...

Musings on (500) Days of Summer, Part 2,
a.k.a.
The Burden of Choices

A few months ago, I wrote about some of the impressions I got from watching (500) Days of Summer. Since then, I've bantered about this film to a few other people, some of whom had read the original post, some of whom had not. As a result, I have more to say on the film. So I'm going to do so here.

The strength in (500) Days of Summer (henceforth referred to as "500 Days") lies in its realism and this is the primary reason I like the film so much. I mean, when I wrote Musings Part 1, I went into great detail about specific aspects I enjoyed, but they were all examples of how certain scenes in the film/qualities portrayed by the main characters, represented what I considered to be an accurate representation of two people, who should never have dated in the first place, attempting to do so anyway.

Tom and Summer are archetypes for their genders. Even though 500 Days does not outright say this, I think the film focuses (and thus gives a sense of exaggeration) on certain personality types that we associate with certain factions of either gender, namely "The Hopeless Romantic" and "The Independent Girl." Both archetypes are labels that evoke a defensive stance from most people - whether that be supportive or derisive - and so dislike for either Tom or Summer tends to be a common reaction. This is where the film intrigues me.

Looking at flixster, imdb, and general heresay (I know... always a reliable source), it seems like most guys who watch 500 Days tend to side with Tom and dislike Summer while most girls tend to side with Summer and dislike Tom. Considering their archetypal nature, this seems quite natural, especially in light of what I've read about the differences between the genders.

It's easy and natural for girls to sympathize with Summer because she is independent, and makes it very clear to Tom, right from the get go, that she's not looking for a relationship. I really have come to understand how much guys take "doing what you want" for granted - how easy it is for us to wake up in the morning and do what feels natural or right - whereas for girls, choices seem to be more conscious and deliberate. I think this may have something to do with the fact that for many years, girls could not simply wake up and do what they want; they were always subject to the scrutiny of their husbands and/or people in society and therefore have always had to make conscious choices in situations where men simply "did". In this way, the choice to do as she wanted made Summer even more of a lightning rod for female sympathy - something that men, who have never had to make the distinction, have a hard time understanding.

You can see now why it's easy for girls to see Tom as a bit of shmuck. Here is a guy who is told, in no uncertain terms, that the girl in question does not want a boyfriend - that she does not want to "belong" to anybody - and yet, he still insists on pursuing her anyway. He falls hopelessly in love with her, deludes himself into thinking she's perfect in every way, then gets mad at her because she doesn't want to marry him (in more or less words). Girls see this as "this guy decides, regardless of what the girl has told him, that she is his perfect girl and will be his girlfriend. In fact, he has simply assumed that his preferences will eventually override her preferences." What a dick!

So, let's turn this around.

Guys sympathize with Tom because they relate to his quest for "the perfect girl." Guys understand that men channel their emotional outlet into one person; it does not shoot off into multiple channels like a lightning bolt. Therefore, the quest for someone who provides this outlet becomes far more noble and justified. Maybe Tom is deluded about Summer, but when you finally find someone with whom you can share your feelings, that's a big deal. Furthermore, Summer does behave very much like she was in a relationship with him. Even if she doesn't take the relationship seriously, she has to know that he does and as I mentioned a few days ago, human decency dictates that you be considerate of the other party's feelings, regardless of what you may feel. Guys understand that Tom may be a little deluded but then again, that's what love is, isn't it? Two people who are a little deluded in each other's favour.

Furthermore, guys will likely find it reprehensible that when Summer is engaged to be married, she dances with Tom anyway, and when broached upon why she did so, she replies, "Because I wanted to." I've already pontificated upon the selfishness of this reply in Musings Part 1, but permit me to expand on it a little in light of topics discussed here.

As discussed, the "burden" of having to make conscious choices falls upon girls more heavily than guys. As a side note, this may partly explain the whole "girls think more than guys" thing and how guys say "nothing" when asked what they're thinking. While recognizing that making decisions "for themselves" is empowering, it is a mistake for girls to assume that this overrides the obligation to make decisions that consider the feelings of all parties involved. If men do this (assume), it is a FLAW that ought to be corrected, not emulated.

In many ways, the REAL issue here is that people have a hard time accepting the fact that guys and girls are different. Assuming that we're all the same is as misguided as assuming that race (and thus racial history) doesn't exist. If you are a girl who is in full support of Summer, have you considered just how selfish it is to simply "do whatever you want" without considering the feelings of others around you? And if you're a guy who is in full support of Tom, have you considered that not every girl you meet wants to be in a serious relationship and that it's unreasonable to expect her to mold herself according to what you consider to be the perfect girl?

The fatal flaw in 500 Days is that it does not come out and say what I've just said (which kind of defeats the point of having an omniscient narrator - a choice that's hard enough to justify as is and even harder to justify if he can't even do what he's supposed to do). It allows you to believe whatever you want to believe; to pick either Tom or Summer and side with one or the other wholeheartedly. It is an authentic and realistic look at two people who were wrong for each other but it doesn't force you to understand that they were both at fault and that these faults are worth correcting. Instead, they both find happiness in other people (or potential happiness since the film ends at that point). Who knows? Maybe Summer's "I'll do what I want" attitude destroys her marriage when her husband gets sick of her spending all her time with other men and Tom's "fate will guide me to the perfect girl" mentality causes him to commit suicide when Autumn eventually dumps him and Winter isn't around for him to project his idea of a perfect girl onto.

So close, 500 Days, but no cigar.

I was a little late to switch over from WMP to iTunes as my primary music player so I don't know if iTunes ever had this feature, but once upon a time, WMP did something amazing: it added a feature to its panel labelled "Recently Added." Basically, anytime you added new music to your library, it automatically showed up under the list for... I can't remember... something like 2 or 3 weeks. Admittedly, it was an arbitrary length of time, but it made isolating new music super easy.

Then they took that feature out in their later versions! Why?! And why doesn't iTunes have a feature like this?

Ugh, Fort McMurray...

Haley: I asked for chips and they gave me nachos.
Danny: Nachos are kind of chips.
Haley: Then I asked for salsa and they gave me ketchup.
Danny: Ketchup is kind of salsa.
Me: This is why I'm leaving at the end of the year.

Unforeseen side affect of owning an iPod touch:

I have absolutely zero reason to get out of bed on Saturday/Sunday mornings. Sad but I think the only reason why I ever convinced myself to get out of bed on those days was so that I could check in on the virtual world. Now that I no longer have to get out of bed to do this, I just... don't.

People say that it's a good thing we forget stuff. I think this is true in some ways. On the other hand, sometimes I wish I could temporarily remember things in vivid detail. Somehow, I feel I'd be able to figure shit out a lot better if that were the case. I understand the importance of being able to put things in perspective by looking at them from a distance but sometimes I wish I remembered the perspective of experiencing things the moment they happen. Somehow, I feel like my memory doesn't quite do it justice.

More and more, I am beginning to see the merit in possibly driving home from Fort McMurray by myself. I know it's a horrible idea but I wonder what I would do during the evenings when I was completely and utterly obligation-free.

How can I not have done enough thinking for a lifetime during my days at Queen's? That's practically all I did!

How left-wing individualism has been detrimental to the way we "do" relationships.

Back when I was a student teacher, I had a chance to teach a grade 12 University Philosophy course. Sometimes, I wonder if that'll be the apex of my entire teaching career (slightly depressing) but that course really is a treat for any teacher who enjoys the subject matter. At any rate, one of the assignments I gave them was to distinguish between the different ways we understand "left wing" and "right wing" ideas, specifically in reference to the following two spectrums:

A. Economic Values:
Left Wing = socialism, taxes, more government intervention, welfare, subsidized healthcare, eduction, etc...
Right Wing = capitalism, free-market economics, private property, low (or no) taxes, privatized healthcare, education, etc...

B. Moral/Civil Values:
Left Wing = gay marriage, pro-choice, women's rights (feminism), diversity
Right Wing = community, family, god, homogeneity

The discussion I conducted had to do with a discrepancy that some of you may have noticed. When we talk about economic values, "left wing" seems to center around the idea of community (hence communism), helping each other out, and universal benefits; by the same logic, "right wing" seems to center around the individual: private ownership, free-market, laissez-faire. However, in some bizarre twist, moral/civil values seem to flip that around. "Left wing," in the case of moral/civil rights, means more individualism: individual right to choose whom to marry, women's right to make their own decisions. On the flip side, "right wing" moral/civil values seem to be very community based, i.e. focus on family, god, and keeping the status quo.

The big assignment they had to do was to (attempt to) square up the economic and civil spectrums in such a way that we can explain the discrepency between why "individualism" and "community" seem to represent both left wing and right wing values, depending on which spectrum you were examining. After all, wouldn't it have been much easier to simply flip one of them around? Is there some underlying factor at play that we have not examined?

I got some fascinating responses for this assignment (though I remember none of them) and this was all really a giant preamble to the post I'm aiming to write. I'm sorry it's taken so long to get to this point but I really did enjoy that lesson and thought I'd share it.

Anyhow, the big thing that came out of planning this lesson was how I (with Christian's help) managed to zero in on the key idea that unifies how we understand the spectrum, i.e. "Individualism" vs. "Community". Setting aside economics for now, I just wanted to look a little closer at the idea of left-wing moral/civil values, i.e. individualism, and it's impact on modern day teenage/twentysomething relationships.

I will be the first to say that the rise of Individualism has brought about many wonderful things. Gay marriage is a big one, the freedom to choose what you want to do with your life, the idea that you, as an individual, have a right to be happy and fulfilled and are free to have beliefs that do not get encroached upon by close-minded traditionalists. That being said, it is almost always detrimental to lean too far in either direction on any spectrum and moral/civil left-wingism is no exception.

Most Asian people understand that traditional Asian cultures have always been right wing (in the eyes of the Western world). To be a second-generation Asian means that you grow up with the inherent understanding of who you are in relation to other people because that is how you would traditionally define yourself. For example, if someone asks you who you are, you would say "I'm a son/brother/father/uncle/mentor" and even if you didn't (I, for example, probably wouldn't), you would at least find the idea of defining yourself in relation to other people "normal" because that is simply a cultural convention.

If you were brought up in a progressive, white culture, chances are you've grown up defining yourself as an individual. That's not to say that you don't understand the idea of defining yourself in relation to others - I'm sure that saying you're someone's brother doesn't strike you as odd - it's just that if called upon to answer the question, "who are you?", "a brother" probably isn't the first thing you'd think of. And this is fine - there's absolutely no problem with being left-wing and thinking in terms of individualism...

Until you're in a relationship.

Growing up, I've always noticed that Asian couples seemed a little more stable than white ones. Obviously, there are exceptions to both, but as a general observation, my white friends tended to have relationships that were more volatile while my asian friends (those who were in relationships with each other, at any rate) seemed to have a less drama and, on the whole, seemed a lot more mature about the whole process. Obviously, I'd be jumping the gun if I drew conclusions from this tiny sample of upper-middle class suburbanites but then I went to Queen's and noticed that this trend seemed to continue (among a larger sample of upper-middle class suburbanites), even through university. This got me thinking.

I began to think of these trends, not from the point of view of "White people vs. Asian people," but rather, as "Left-Wing-Individualism vs. Right-Wing-Conservatism." Lately, things have begun to make a whole lot of sense when examined under this dichotomy, mostly because it removed the pesky "not all white people are left-wing-individualists and not all Asian people are right-wing-conservatives" problem and focuses on the value system that one generally (but did not strictly) associated with either culture.

If you are an Individualist, you were either brought up to believe (or currently believe) in the value of individual rights and freedoms. Individualism posits that you should do what makes you happy and that your values are important and define who you are. Great. I will allow that this is all fine and good if you are content to lead a single life. However, what individualists take a long time to understand is that if you want to have a relationship, not everything can be a non-negotiable value.

Obviously, you will have core values. Giving up all your values for the sake of a relationship is the extremist version of right-wing-conservatism - it's what used to happen when (if you were a girl), you married the man who would accept your father's dowry. We've spent years moving away from that line of thinking for good reason. However, it is... um... insane/unreasonable to say that every value you have on every topic ever is non-negotiable. This holds true for both genders and it is a big reason why people broke up so often in high school.

Jon Wong: Exactly what happened between you and x?
Friend: Well, he/she is really into the military and spends a lot of time at cadets and you know me, I'm not really into that stuff.

Really? The fact you're not "into" cadets is a deal breaker for one or both of you? Sure, maybe you have one less thing to talk about, but it's not like you're against the idea of cadets. Or let's take another example.

Jon Wong: Exactly what happened between you and x?
Friend: Well, you know how I don't drink... well, he/she does.
Jon Wong: Heavily? Like gets wasted and pukes and stuff?
Friend: No, he/she just likes to have a glass of wine every so often, but still!

I'm making shit up - those conversations didn't actually take place (nor do I want to reduce the importance of cadets or teetotaling) but very similar ones did, and the overall trend seemed to point to what can simply be categorized as inflexibility. Individualism seems to imbue people with the sense that a relationship with someone can only work out if you happen to be the same in every way - once you discovered that you disagreed on something, the inevitable "fight" convinced people that things "obviously weren't working" and that they should simply break up and try to find people who "shared the same values." But I mean, are you crazy? What are the chances of meeting someone who shares the exact same values as you? You could say that you don't want to be in a relationship (and that's a whole other decision) but if you're going to enter into one willingly and want to give it a fighting chance, you have to give up the notion that everything you could ever want is a non-negotiable. Maybe Individualism has taught you think that way, but when you date someone, you can no longer think on those terms. I'm sorry but that comes with the territory of being in a relationship.

But so what, you say. If individuals are hell-bent on making it impossible for themselves to be happy in any relationship, then that is their choice is it not? Well, yes and no. For one, while it's all fine and good if someone tells me they have no desire to be in a relationship, it would also be tragic for someone to say that they want to be in a relationship, but can't seem to make them work because they keep breaking up for one reason or another. I mean, I know that what I'm saying basically equates to "you can't have your cake and eat it too" but to spend your entire life looking for a magical relationship that requires no sacrifice just seems naive. Maybe I'm wrong. It would be great if I were wrong... I just don't think I am. Don't let a lifetime of individualism convince you that giving something up for the sake of love is a bad thing.

There's also one other issue I take with left-wing-individualism as it pertains to relationships. It has to do with what happens when you fall out of love with someone. This really is a problem, regardless of whether you are in favor of relationships. It is simply this: you cannot disregard your partner's feelings until you are no longer in a relationship. This is one of those things that I feel needs to be beaten into everyone's head.

Look, when you enter into a relationship, you have signed an unwritten contract that basically says, "Throughout the duration of this relationship, I will be considerate of my significant other's feelings." This includes the time between the moment you think you might not love that person and the moment you break up. Sure, it'd be nice of you to be considerate of everyone's feelings all the time but I know this is too much to ask from people. However, you are obligated - by any measure of human decency - to be considerate of your partner's feelings throughout the entire relationship.

It's easy to think of your significant other when you are in love; when you are smitten by them and want to be with them 24/7. It's so easy and natural to send them a text asking how their day is; to chat on skype or by phone every few days; to spend time with them; to think twice about the message you send by hanging out with other guys/girls (whichever is your sexually-preferred gender) for significant periods of time. And I know that when you start to realize that you no longer love or are attracted to your significant other, you lose that desire to be with them all the time. Left-wing-individualism takes over and suddenly, what you - your individual self - wants is no longer what you have in your relationship. This is ok. It sucks, but it happens. However...

Until you have formally broken up with your significant other, this does not give you the right to "do whatever you want."

That unwritten contract you signed at the beginning of the relationship does not become null and void just because you no longer desire to follow its stipulation. This is where Individualism becomes dangerous. Taken too far, it supports the notion that you no longer have to consider your significant other's feelings simply because those feelings are no longer important to you. If you really don't have feelings for your significant other, BREAK UP. If you're not sure and want time to figure it out, that is your prerogative, but know that during this time, you still have an obligation to your significant other. Ignoring them, not spending time with them, or spending lots of time with other sexually-viable people is not your "right" simply because it is what you want. Break up with your significant other. Then, and only then, do those things become your rights.