The Nerd Generation

Our generation has been called a number of things: Millennials, Generation Y, the "Me" Generation.  But honestly, none of those terms really capture who we are as a generation, do they?  If the Millennials could be personified as a individual and contrasted with previous generations, who would that person be?  

In my opinion: a nerd.  

Being a nerd has never been SO cool.  Almost all the big blockbuster movies these days are comic book adaptations, sci-fi, and fantasy.  Who can count the number of Marvel and DC comic book movies that have come out in the past few years?  They've revived the Star Trek and Star Wars franchises (with huge financial success), and Peter Jackson took The Lord of the Rings and turned it from a rather esoteric, cult-hit series of fantasy books, and made them into some of the highest-grossing, most epic films of all time.  Not to mention Harry Potter, the Hunger Games, the Matrix, Avatar, The Hobbit, Ender's Game and most of the Pixar/Dreamworks movies.  Even mainstream, teen romances are moving more and more into the sci-fi/fantasy realm.  Twilight, anyone?  I think most of Twilight's fan-base would not consider themselves to be nerds, and yet they worship characters and a story that exist in what would normally be considered a nerd/geek universe.  It combines things geeks love (vampires, super-powers) with things that teenage girls love (romance and sparkles!).  The other day my friend saw a section in the Barnes and Noble labeled "Paranormal Teen Romance."  Things are definitely changing. 

Also, need I mention that it was my generation that made anime popular in the West?  What young person these days doesn't at least know the name Miyazaki?  Over the course of my lifetime, I have seen the birth of the Anime & Manga section in bookstores--not only that, but literally every time I go back to Barnes & Noble I swear that section gets bigger.  My generation grew up watching Transformers and Power Rangers, and when we got older we were delighted to discover a wealth of awesome anime-mecha series to geek out over, in addition to all those adorably kooky, bizarre anime romances, and intense, surreal dramas, thrillers, and horror flicks.  
 

 East to West - Japan's influence on the Nerd Generation

(clockwise from top left: The Power Rangers, Evangelion, Pacific Rim)







To catch up with this frenzy of nerdom, conventions and groups have been springing up all over the country where people who love these things can meet, mingle, and just generally geek out.  Comic-Con is one of the most famous, with annual conventions popping up in cities all over the US, and in other countries as well.  San Diego was the first city to kick off its annual Comic-Con in 1970, followed by Chicago in 1976--but the Comic-Cons really took off during our youth when Pittsburgh, Detroit (1994), New York (1996) and ten other cities (in the 2000's) started their own annual Comic-Cons.  The biggest anime conventions in the US are Anime Expo (first held in 1992), Otakon (1994), Anime Central (1998), and many more have proliferated since then.  The nerd wave may have really started with Generation X, but Generation Y has carried it on with gusto and made it their own.  

New York Comic Con

Need I also add that there are now countless comedy troups, singers, bands, indie film-makers, artists, and even bars and clubs that all specialize in geek-stuff.  Not to mention youtube sensations like the Vlog Brothers, Geek and Sundry, and PBS's Idea Channel, and more geeky webcomics than you could count. 

Of course, the people who go to conventions and immerse themselves in this stuff are still a small minority of the population. 

Yearnings

The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf

The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf

The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf

The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf

I think people in general have a tendency to overlook their own emotions.  Either you dislike what you're feeling, so you try to distance yourself from it; or you feel too busy to deal with it; or you can't make sense out of it, so you try to tell yourself, "There's no reason for me to feel that way."  But I disagree.  There is always a reason for every feeling, even if that reason is subconscious.  However, whether or not you understand the origin or reason behind every feeling doesn't entirely matter.  One of the fundamentals of Rumi's philosophy is that all human emotion serves a purpose.  Feelings are neither arbitrary nor meaningless.  Every yearning, every desire you have exists so that you will seek out the things you really need--not only to live, but also to be a complete human being.  We feel hunger so that we will eat.  We feel tired so that we will sleep.  We yearn to be creative and express ourselves because we need to create things.  We yearn for God, for a higher spiritual order, because we need to make spiritual sense of our universe.  It is not enough to just exist.  We must know why.  We must feel there is a purpose to our being.  

I'm not saying that simply wanting there to be a God is a justification for believing in God.  I think Rumi's idea is that, if there is a yearning, there must be an answer to that yearning.  If we are thirsty, we must drink.  No one would deny this.  But does it not logically follow then, that if someone deeply longs to make music, they must make music?  Why is it that so many famous artists throughout history have been destitute, starving, cast out of society, and yet somehow felt overwhelmingly compelled, not to seek out a decent paying job, but rather to make art?  As Vincent van Gogh said in a letter to his brother, "Sometimes I draw . . . almost against my will, but it is a hard and difficult struggle to draw well."  Why on earth would he choose to spend his time doing such a seemingly fruitless activity, when he lived in extreme poverty and only sold one painting in his entire lifetime?  Because he had a hunger that needed to be fed: a hunger as real and demanding to him as any physical hunger.  

This is where it gets difficult, I think.  Everyone understands hunger, thirst, and tiredness because we all feel it in essentially the same way.  But not everyone feels the need to draw, or play sports, or commune with God.  Some people feel these yearnings so powerfully that it drives their entire lives, while others might feel that same yearning not at all.  Still more people might feel a moderate amount of this or that desire, but not to the point where they would make such sacrifices as van Gogh did.  When it comes to non-physical needs, it takes a great deal of empathy and patience to understand what drives people to do what they do.  However, like Rumi, I believe that nothing we feel is without significance.  Although making music, writing a story, or playing a sport might not be essential to life in the physical sense, it is essential in the spiritual sense.  It is not water for our bodies, but for our souls.  Whatever you do that makes you feel most truly happy and whole, that is your purpose in life.  The trick is that it's up to you to find the right balance of these things in your life, and to be strong enough to insist on the things you need, even if other people don't understand them.    

Of course, then you must ask, what if you yearn to do something wrong?  What if the fruition of your desire would be harmful to other people, or even to yourself?  Obviously you can't just use the excuse that you wanted to do it, so therefore it must be right.  Our feelings and our desires need to be interpreted, balanced, and acted upon in a constructive way.  An emotion may be leading you towards the right place, but you must interpret it correctly and find the right way to get there.  Not all pathways to an objective are equal.  For example, if you feel that a situation in your life is getting alarmingly out of control, perhaps your first impulse would be take control of it through violence or intimidation.  That impulse is not the feeling you should follow.  What you really need to ask yourself is, what is upsetting to me about this situation and how can I fix it in the most effective, benevolent way possible?  Violence just leads to more violence, and running away from the situation just leaves it to be solved another day.  But if it's upsetting to you, that means it needs to change, and there is probably a decent way to fix if you just think about it.  I'm not saying that making that change is always easy, or that you can always do it without upsetting anybody, but most of the time, there is probably a constructive path that will lead you to what you really need.

Life hurts sometimes, but that pain only exists to tell us what we need.  Rumi said, "The cure for pain is in the pain."  It is a guide sent to lead you towards goodness and happiness.  Even if you are lonely or feel unfulfilled, don't run away from that feeling.  Don't ignore it.  Follow it. 

"That hurt we embrace becomes joy.  Call it to your arms where it can change."

We can only change when we recognize our problems and decide to face them.  If you feel broken, lost, empty, don't drown yourself in obligations and distractions.   Follow your grief to the place where you can be whole.  

The cure for pain is in the pain.
Good and bad are mixed. If you don't have both,
you don't belong with us. - See more at: http://allspirit.co.uk/rumilovers.html#sthash.DLUmUn3q.dpuf

~~~~~~~~~~~

One night a man was crying,
 Allah! Allah!
His lips grew sweet with the praising,
until a cynic said,
"So! I have heard you
calling out, but have you ever
gotten any response?"

The man had no answer to that.
He quit praying and fell into a confused sleep.

He dreamed he saw Khidr, the guide of souls,
in a thick, green foliage.
"Why did you stop praising?"

"Because I've never heard anything back."
 

"This longing
you express is the return message."

The grief you cry out from
draws you toward union.

Your pure sadness
that wants help
is the secret cup.

Listen to the moan of a dog for its master.
That whining is the connection.

There are love dogs
no one knows the names of.

Give your life
to be one of them.

~Rumi 

Sources of inspiration for this post:
 
The Illuminated Rumi, translated by Coleman Barks

The Problem With "Having It All"

I have always strongly disliked the question, "Can women have it all?"  It's a ridiculous question because nobody can have it all: the high-powered career, enough time with your kids, enough time with your spouse, enough time with friends, enough time for yourself.  Men certainly don't have it all; they're just more likely to choose to spend more time on their careers and less on their families and social lives.  But somehow, it seems like women these days are raised to believe that they not only can, but should "have it all." 

Finally!  Someone is responding to this unrealistic and unfair expectation.  I saw this Debora L. Spar interview the other day, and I wanted to throw my hands in the air and yell "Hallelujah!"  She's the author of a new book called Wonder Women: Sex, Power, and the Quest for Perfection.  Here's the interview (it's only 6 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyu3K305nRs

Rules of Engagement: Talking with Introverts & Extroverts

People seem to feel a need for better understanding between introverts and extroverts these days.  Why else would there be such a proliferation on the internet of introvert vs. extrovert cartoons, comparison charts, and guides like "How to Care for Introverts," "10 Myths About Introverts," "How to Piss Off Introverts" etc.   Not to mention a number of books on the same topic.  (Side note: I can't help but notice the extreme emphasis on introverts as opposed to extroverts in most of these, but that's a topic for another time).   For the moment, I simply want to join this discussion by talking about some key differences I've noticed between the way an extrovert tends to conduct a conversation versus the way an introvert tends to do it. 

When it comes to group conversation, introverts and extroverts seem to operate based on two different sets of assumptions--or we could even say different rules of etiquette.  I notice this difference more with young people (i.e. teens and twenty-somethings), and I especially see it in situations where there is either one introvert among extroverts or vice versa.  As an introvert myself, I've experienced these things a number of times.  I might be generalizing too much--maybe I'm focusing too much on shy introverts vs. extreme extroverts, or maybe there's something else more specific going on--but I've seen these things happen with other people as well, and I've seen it enough times that I'm willing to go out on a limb and say it's a general introvert vs. extrovert thing.  However, I am really curious to know if other people see the same thing, something completely different, or if you just have a different interpretation of these behaviors.  Please leave a comment and give me your two cents! 

So here we go:

Introverts are more likely to wait for a clear opening or look for a kind of "invitation" from the other people before entering a conversation.  By invitation I really just mean that they look for some kind of acknowledgement of their presence, either with a glance, a gesture, a greeting, or a question from the other people present.  This is especially true when the introvert is approaching a conversation that is already under way, and it's doubly true when the conversation in progress is fast-paced or intense.  

Extroverts, on the other hand, tend to assume that if you want to join the conversation, you'll just do it, without waiting for a cue from anyone else.  Extroverts aren't as prone to waiting and reading other people before speaking--they just dive right in, and they expect the responses from other people to be just as quick and spontaneous. 

Women in Game of Thrones

It always kind of disturbed me how the women are treated in Game of Thrones.  As objects really.  As sex toys.  In the show there are countless gratuitous scenes with prostitutes, naked women, and degrading remarks about women.  On the surface, it seems like Game of Thrones is pretty grossly sexist. 

But let's take a step back.  Game of Thrones takes place in a setting that very closely resembles Medieval Europe.  The way women are treated in the show is probably a pretty accurate portrayal of the lives of Medieval women in general.  After all, in those times, women were essentially property, just as they are in Game of Thrones.   Saying that Game of Thrones is sexist is kind of like saying that 12 Years a Slave is racist.  It completely misses the point.

Not that Game of Thrones is expressly trying to spread awareness of the abuse of women or anything like that.  It is still, primarily, just a great fantasy adventure story.  But when it really comes down to it, what saves Game of Thrones from being sexist is that fact that every prominent female character in the story is strong, intelligent, and has such a depth of character that you can't help but empathize with her.

Even a character like Cersei, who I think we all can agree, is a Grade A Bitch, has moments where you really feel sorry for her, and she definitely has reasons for being the way she is.  The scene where the women are hiding in the Red Keep during the Battle of Blackwater and her conversation with Tyrion in the final episode of season three do a great deal to humanize her.  You'd have to be cold as stone not to pity her when she talks about her son Joffrey.  So sad. 

What I really love about the women in Game of Thrones, however, is the fact that they are all strong, and yet all so different.   When I was an adolescent, I read a great deal of fantasy novels, and after a while, it really annoyed me that the only women who were portrayed as "strong" were the ones who completely rejected their traditional feminine roles.  They were the tomboys, the sword-wielding women who dressed in men's clothes and took on a man's role.  When I read Game of Thrones in high school, I was overjoyed to discover Catelyn Stark--a noblewoman who remained completely within the bounds of her traditional gender role, and yet whom no one could deny had nerves of steel, was smart, brave, and fiercely loyal.  How could anyone not respect Lady Stark?  She was the ultimate strong, feminine, dutiful woman.  A true noblelady. 

Catelyn Stark was the one who struck me the most in high school, but after watching the show, I am reminded of how the strong female characters in Game of Thrones really fill the spectrum of possibilities.