"She's out of my league"
I decided to do something fun today and went to see the movie She's Out of My League.
I thought this might be a chick flick though I heard it described as a cross between a mixture of Superbad 
and The Hangover. 
What I noticed glancing around the theater was that even middle-aged men seemed to be coming in to see the show with each other, not dragged by their wife or girlfriend. I could see why.
The movie was funny and basically told the story of a group of guys who work for TSA and hang out together trying to figure out how to get laid or how to fix their broken relationships. They tell each other their secrets and basically rag on each other, but at the same time, seem supportive and well-intentioned. The lead in the show, Jay Baruchel who plays Kirk, is not really a dork because dorks are typically (but not always) smart.
He seems fairly dumb and has little interest in anything other than a girl he meets named Molly played by Alice Eve. Naturally, Molly is "out of his league" as she is a lawyer by trade--turned high-level event planner, has a beautiful apartment, and a great body. He, on the other hand, is out of shape, clumsy and seems to have nothing much to offer except low self-esteem. What I gathered to be the theme of movie was not terribly original--that a 5 or 6 guy can get a 10 woman if he thinks he can. Gee, that's a shock.
Anyway, I won't spoil the rest of the movie for you. It is fun, entertaining and I really enjoyed it.
My final thought from the movie is that it seems silly to rate people based on looks and decide that you can't be with someone based on some rating. It seems superficial but then again, it seems like that's what our society is all about.
I thought this might be a chick flick though I heard it described as a cross between a mixture of Superbad and The Hangover. What I noticed glancing around the theater was that even middle-aged men seemed to be coming in to see the show with each other, not dragged by their wife or girlfriend. I could see why.The movie was funny and basically told the story of a group of guys who work for TSA and hang out together trying to figure out how to get laid or how to fix their broken relationships. They tell each other their secrets and basically rag on each other, but at the same time, seem supportive and well-intentioned. The lead in the show, Jay Baruchel who plays Kirk, is not really a dork because dorks are typically (but not always) smart.
He seems fairly dumb and has little interest in anything other than a girl he meets named Molly played by Alice Eve. Naturally, Molly is "out of his league" as she is a lawyer by trade--turned high-level event planner, has a beautiful apartment, and a great body. He, on the other hand, is out of shape, clumsy and seems to have nothing much to offer except low self-esteem. What I gathered to be the theme of movie was not terribly original--that a 5 or 6 guy can get a 10 woman if he thinks he can. Gee, that's a shock.
Anyway, I won't spoil the rest of the movie for you. It is fun, entertaining and I really enjoyed it.
My final thought from the movie is that it seems silly to rate people based on looks and decide that you can't be with someone based on some rating. It seems superficial but then again, it seems like that's what our society is all about.
posted by Helen at 5:36 PM
72 Comments:
Amen to that last paragraph!
I saw the promo for this movie, and said to myself "This is exactly like Chuck" (the NBC show). Semi-loser nerd goes after the hot, accomplished blonde.
What's odd is that I know for a fact that the demographics of that show skews towards middle aged males too.
I'm not sure if it's a form of self-realization that makes this theme appealing to them (at middle age we finally have the maturity to see that the physical side of attraction is not all-important) or a kind of nostalgia that makes the worst part of being 20-something - the low self esteem part - seem like it was fun. But it seems to be more universal than I would have expected.
Maybe us middle age guys just like a sappy sweet story every so often ;>
Right. Typical misandrist tripe. The low self-esteemed moron, played by a man is saved by a smart, intelligent, beautiful women who just happens to be a lawyer. Media once again making men, unmen.
yeh nice story of the movie...
I have just found its reviews on of the site http://mymovees.com/archives/watch-shes-out-of-my-league/
and its really very good
Methadras,
I didn't get the sense that the guy was saved by this woman. In some ways, he saved her, and showed her how to love and engage in a real way. But I get your point.
Have to agree with Methadras. That's why I don't bother with watching most movies nowadays. It's all just a bunch of guys-are-bumbling-idiots-or-brutes-while-women-are-super-intelligent-and caring-hotties crap. Why would I want to watch something like that? Now, if you'd told me that the woman in the movie was a bitch who couldn't cook, drive, manage money, figure out how to read the newspaper, or figure out why she shouldn't play Russian roulette with the life of a child by pressing the Xerox button before she's in a stable marriage, well, then I might start to consider going to see it. I'd still want them to do something different with the guy's character, but I'd at least be less offended if they portrayed the female character in a realistic way instead of as the super-woman that the writers wanted themselves to be.
...but I'd at least be less offended if they portrayed the female character in a realistic way
The only "realistic way" to portray a woman is as a bitch who can't do anything worthwhile? That's as bad as saying that the only realistic way to portray a guy is as a bumbling foolish slob.
I've known both my share of bumbling foolish slobs and bitchy incompetent women... but I've also known good men and women. Why not just make the movie about good men and women, who have flaws to be sure as people do, but who are not thoughtless caricatures?
... that a 5 or 6 guy can get a 10 woman if he thinks he can. Gee, that's a shock.
They've done this sort of movie with a female character before. To me this sounds a lot like Bridget Jones's Diary. Bridget Jones is (as she herself readily admits) a bumbling, clumsy, out of shape, often foolish thirty-something "spinster"... and in the movie a handsome, clever lawyer falls in love with her.
So there it's the case of a woman rated 4-6, getting a guy who could be rated 8-10.
it seems silly to rate people based on looks and decide that you can't be with someone based on some rating
That is so true, and unfortunately, such thinking is often based on what other people think, when (if we assume the goal is happiness) the proper inquiry ought to be on what the two people concerned think. Not on some amorphous idea that other people (or the media) have about how things are supposed to appear. I can't speak for the experiences of women, but I will never forget how guys used to cruelly drum such ideas into each other when I was younger. ("You can do better than her!" "She's a slut!" Or "she's a dog!") Men were conditioned to believe that their status as men is dependent on what other men think of their choices in women, and I suspect the same applies to women (possibly even more so). It's tyrannical, and yet it's purely voluntary in the sense that no one is forced to go along with it.
I think that in the case of the "woman rated 4-6, getting a guy who could be rated 8-10" the man could expect to be put down by his "peers," and the woman would probably be an object of scorn for women who "can't see what he sees in her," and view her as a threat to their self-esteem. (However, if valuation of self depends on the opinions of others, perhaps "self-esteem" is a poor choice of words.)
Without blaming women or men, I think the system is a racket. No wonder it fuels the entertainment industry.
Hmm ... a 5 or 6 "bagging" the 10. Helen seems to like that analogy and thinks that all middle-aged men think in those terms and want some women who feels she is far better than them.
I guess the analogous female version would involve a money / success ranking scale. The waitress wants to marry the engineer or the like. Or the not very successful psychologist wants to "bag" the law school professor with a successful Web site. Something like that.
I loved the movie, and thought it true fantasy premise was not the guy and the girl but the positive impression of Pittsburgh it left on the audience.
When I was younger men often described the women they dated as "hot", or "nice" if she wasn't "hot". Now I find men describe the women they date by their job, "he's dating a doctor". Perhaps older men equate dating success with income potential.
I guess people are allowed to describe others as they wish, but it would be nice if men could round out their description with more information as in, "he's dating a lady who enjoys sky diving and wine tasting." That would give me a much better mental picture of the person. I'm not all that concerned about what people look like or income, in either men or women.
"Now, if you'd told me that the woman in the movie was a bitch who couldn't cook, drive, manage money, figure out how to read the newspaper, or figure out why she shouldn't play Russian roulette with the life of a child by pressing the Xerox button before she's in a stable marriage, well, then I might start to consider going to see it."
If you don't want to see it that's fine (I don't go to movies often myself), but the female lead is more complicated than this, but I can't reveal more without spoiling the movie.
My final thought from the movie is that it seems silly to rate people based on looks and decide that you can't be with someone based on some rating.
Until you bring back arranged marriages, people who are free will pick those who appeal to them. Doesn't mean it will be a healthy, or a smart choice. In fact, it could be a down-right head scratcher, like the typical sweet girl with the arch-typical douchebag.
I've known plenty of women I like, I respect, who are awesome. But they don't appeal to me. Thus why we are friends, and not more.
The real trick is to find someone you like, respect, who is awesome and and makes you look twice.
Cham self-righteously states: "I'm not all that concerned about what people look like or income, in either men or women."
----------
That's because you've evolved far beyond ordinary people.
"My final thought from the movie is that it seems silly to rate people based on looks and decide that you can't be with someone based on some rating. It seems superficial but then again, it seems like that's what our society is all about."
Helen, usually it's not a make-or-break deal on the looks (which as you recall from the film is most of the number rating)...if you have the looks and talk a good game, a girl will seemingly let everything else slide. If you don't, you are subjected to a long checklist of requirements and sh**-tests.
Our society IS quite shallow, and the entitlement of the clueless American girl is a leading sign. For example, just this morning I was listening to the Kane Show in DC (an FM drive time variety talk show). He asked women to call in and tell him what they considered "good money" for a man to make. Every single one of them said at least $80k...which is hard to get in the DC area and also doesn't go very far.
We got all the same old rationalizations: "I want a man who has financial goals, who's not a layabout, a woman has to be taken care of," and with the exception of the occasional career woman, none of these callers had any idea what kind of training, skills and hours it takes to make that kind of money, how to take care of it (i.e. don't blow it paycheck to paycheck trying to impress girls) nor that men are not walking wallets with penises.
These girls expected a guy right out of college to be making up near six figures, it was ridiculous!
I bet they are the same people who want a man to go into debt for an engagement ring, on the solipsistic logic that "I'm worth it." Of course, then they'll call the same show ten years later and complain that they've married a man who didn't turn them on and that they've "settled." Zzzzzzzzzzz.
Darth Aggie,
I think western marriage went into the crapper when we as a society started promoting the false idea that marriage was about love.
Unfortunately, love is fleeting and funky in many people.
Once I decoupled myself from this false idea, my view and approach to marriage got a lot healthier.
"When I was younger men often described the women they dated as "hot", or "nice" if she wasn't "hot". Now I find men describe the women they date by their job, "he's dating a doctor". Perhaps older men equate dating success with income potential."
I share your frustration - am I supposed to be proud of someone because he or she is dating a high-status professional? - but I could write the exact same paragraph with only the genders reversed.
The difference is that to a man, "nice" is a compliment that spending time with someone is a positive experience. However, to every woman I've ever known, "he's nice" means "he's a no-sack pansy not worth my attention. I'd never sleep with if my life depended on it. Let's use him as a punchline when you want to rib me about my dating life."
Actually, "nice" to me is code for "doesn't say much, is basically quiet and nonconfrontational with people they don't know well." Although people try to use nice as a compliment, I get the feeling I'm not getting the full picture.
These girls expected a guy right out of college to be making up near six figures, it was ridiculous!
The thing is, a lot of self-entitled college grads - guys and girls - think that too, about their own career prospects. Hence the many observations about how this recession might be a wake-up call to kids (and in many ways a lot of them really are still kids) who've been told all their life that they're great/super/brilliant and will be making big bucks after their BA. Plenty of them don't know what it is to truly work hard and patiently over the years and save money.
@ Eric
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. People in general are too hung up with what others think of them and make dating choices accordingly. If you're forming a relationship in large part based on status or getting a favorable opinion from others, chances are this relationship will crumble and crash at some point.
Love sensibly and love honestly and love well.
I think everybody here is far over-thinking what the appeal of this movie was to middle aged men.
If anybody saw the ads on TV, there was one scene where Mr. "5 or 6" and her, wearing a nice summer dress, show up with at a pool where his friends say to her (and a paraphrase a bit): "Come on in, underwear is fine." and she responds "Underwear would be fine . . . if I was wearing any."
That, my friends, is why any middle aged snoobs would be at that movie.
I think this discussion of 5's and 10's and the superficiality of popular culture calls for a lyric, from Rush's "Subdivisions," a line that defined many of us in our youth and even our 20's:
"Nowhere is the dreamer or the misfit so alone."
"it seems silly to rate people based on looks"
Well, it is silly. And it is also a hardwired neurological event that I bet is pretty inescapable. The section of the male brain that responds with sexual arousal to things we see is 250% larger than the same area in females.
So it is not that we are bad, it is that we are brain damaged. (This was a joke. I put in this disclaimer to try to prevent the cascade of retribution that would follow from people who do not get the joke. So honest, the brain damage part is a joke.)
Trey - who still expects someone to get the vapors
TMink,
I think you are missing a fact, that the looks rating goes both ways...Kirk in the movie is a 5 not because he is an underconfident fool,
but because he's a skinny, scrawny, not-stopping-any-traffic guy.
"is 250% larger than the same area in females."
Is this true? I think women are a LOT more activated by a man's physical appearance than the mainstream culture would like to let on. I've seen both sides pretty regularly judge by looks first, and if their target doesn't have the looks, they are checklisted and nagged against dozens of compensatory factors.
Geeks are smart, dorks are not. A geek's opinion.
Topher, good point, haven't seen the movie yet.
About that part being 250% larger, that is indeed a fact. But, the part of our brain that constructs a map of our relationships is 250% larger in women than in men.
So we watch porn and they read romance novels. I kid, a bit. Their brain also responds to beauty, but I wonder if the relational map leads them to honor status more than we might.
Trey
TMink,
Thanks for the fact check, that is interesting.
"I wonder if the relational map leads them to honor status more than we might."
I think it might be the reverse - perhaps concern with status is a primate-inherited survival/genetic-selection scheme, and thus nature selects for a more developed relationship map neurology which brings us to today.
Would love to hear someone like Steven Pinker wax on this sort of thing.
Cham,
"Actually, "nice" to me is code for "doesn't say much, is basically quiet and nonconfrontational with people they don't know well." Although people try to use nice as a compliment, I get the feeling I'm not getting the full picture."
You do make a very good point. "Nice" is code for "not very interesting," and nobody who is not very interesting on a date is going to get very far without other assets or offerings. Now, you can be quiet and not say much and still be interesting, but this takes some skill in using few words well.
Unfortunately many many people are not very interesting. I still view "nice" as an insult from a woman.
Ohhhh, chicken meet egg. Interesting idea Topher, that gives me something to ponder! ANd please, call me Trey.
Trey
Tether writes: "I guess the analogous female version would involve a money / success ranking scale. The waitress wants to marry the engineer or the like."
--
Yup. Pretty much.
It's a bit offensive when a woman (whose power is based on sexual attraction) thinks that all the middle-aged men are there to eat up this one-sided power thing, but she may be offended when the mirror-image side for women is displayed.
Or maybe not. Lots of women think it's empowering to "bag" a guy with more money or success (and then ride the success sled). That's just what they do.
And men really don't notice it, not even on this board.
"My final thought from the movie is that it seems silly to rate people based on looks and decide that you can't be with someone based on some rating. It seems superficial but then again, it seems like that's what our society is all about."
I'm not sure if this is true. People rate other people and go for them based on their high rating, rather than avoid them. Why go for the loser? Everyone thinks they deserve better than THEIR OWN RATING. A man who's a 5 or 6 will go for an 8, 9 or 10. It's no different than a woman who does the same.
In reality, the difference is the man knows what he is worth. The woman will date the 5 or 6, yet still thinks she deserves a 9 or 10. In the back of her mind, she is "settling" for less. Isn't there a woman's self-help book on "settling"?
The truth about chick flicks is THEY ARE ENTERTAINMENT. They are not based on reality. Any man or woman who acts based on the movie will be a criminal stalker. The movies tell guys or girls to persist on rejection. Get a clue. It doesn't work.
Rejection is a fact of life. Go for another person. There might be another 9 or 10 who is worthy. Then again, don't rule out 7 or 8s who are decent prospects.
"The truth about chick flicks is THEY ARE ENTERTAINMENT. They are not based on reality."
I disagree, in principle. Romantic comedies play off of and reinforce romantic fantasies - what people want to BE reality. Unfortunately, films reflect the values of their time, and most women today do not have a credible male or female role model to tell them the chick flick premise is absurd.
I personally think romantic comedies have done untold damage to the American female psyche.
I'll tell everyone here my 'nice' story to amuse the masses.
I had a friend named Bob who dated a woman named Liz. Bob was my friend so when I asked him about his new lady friend he said that she was really nice. I met Liz and I would have to agree wholeheartedly that Liz was kind, sweet, happy and wonderful...and very nice. A few short months later Bob married Liz. Unfortunately, the marriage only lasted 2 years.
You see, Liz WAS nice but Bob should have asked a few more questions, or at least why she wore that black cape all the time. Liz turned out to be a witch. She had lotions and potions and herbs. She collected crystals and dreamcatchers. Liz spent a great deal of time in cemeteries communicating with the dead. Liz's best friend was her crossdressing brother. Bob was a plumber who liked watching TV and was allergic to cats. Liz was nice but the 2 had incompatible hobbies and interests.
Cham,
The masses are amused. Sounds like Liz was very interesting behind the "nice" veneer. The wrong kind of interesting for most people.
Helen said...
Methadras,
I didn't get the sense that the guy was saved by this woman. In some ways, he saved her, and showed her how to love and engage in a real way. But I get your point.
That's great if the sub-plot drew out a sort of noble reversal of relationship fortunes, however, most people are tied to the imagery, not the content. It's like pop music. The beat is what matters, not so much mouthing the words. Style over substance, but when coupled with feminist-centric imagery, that's what is constantly reinforced. Woman > Man.
Methadras,
Just see the movie.
Topher,
No. It's not my kind of movie.
"No. It's not my kind of movie."
That's fine, but don't make unfounded speculations on the Internet about it if you aren't interested in availing yourself of the facts.
Willful ignorance combined with confirmation bias is a common American syndrome.
Topher "I disagree, in principle. Romantic comedies play off of and reinforce romantic fantasies - what people want to BE reality."
Your comment still does not mean romantic movies are reality. I said the chick flicks are not based on reality and that's true. A fantasy is just that... a fantasy.
A movie reinforces the fantasy. It brings the fantasy to life, but the reality is if you make your decisions on it, you will FAIL.
If its true that a romantic movie is inspired by reality, then maybe a stalker might have a story to tell.
"What I gathered to be the theme of movie was not terribly original--that a 5 or 6 guy can get a 10 woman if he thinks he can. Gee, that's a shock."
Hey Helen, Glenn somehow snagged you! :-)
Dr H:
"... that a 5 or 6 guy can get a 10 woman if he thinks he can."
I sure didn't pick-up that as The Theme when my wife and I saw it last Sunday. [Waaay too much use of the f-bomb, BTW] This sounds too much like "The Little Engine That Could" to me. Good grief, the many times a "dorky" guy gets shot-down in The Game [personal experience, natch] is a refutation of that. The reason I approached hot babes was that I was willing to test your thesis -- and summarily got refused 98 pct of the time. [It finally worked with my wife.] I'd say the theme was that there are, Cupid-be-praised, a few babes out there who aren't so shallow as to judge that proverbial book by its cover. After only two incidents [supporting the lovely traveler against his rules-wed boss and the honesty displayed in returning her iPhone], this Drop. Dead. Gorgeous. lady began to appreciate the contents of that skinny book.
Ekatz:
Bridget Jones Diary. . . So there it's the case of a woman rated 4-6, getting a guy who could be rated 8-10.
Two points. One - I find many different sorts of women attractive and try not to go with what the old ladies and gay guys of the Ford Agency find attractive. My jaw still drops at some supermodels, but where my lizzard brain says "oh, that's nice" I am open to its suggestions. Two - I think (and a number of my buddies think) that chunky Renee Zellwegger is *way* hotter than normal anorexic Renee Zellwegger, who is just one of many cookie cutter starlets. Chunky Renee still has the nice cheekbones, but she's interesting looking, too, in a girl-next-door way.
(BTW, my wife says Hugh Grant is a creepy boy-man, so maybe your 6/10 assessment of the matchup is a bit off).
Larry: Was there a reason why you chose to only approach hot babes? Were you not romantically interested to the nonhots? And why would that be?
"... a 5 or 6 guy can get a 10 woman if he thinks he can."
This strategy certainly seems to have borne fruit for Glenn Reynolds.
zmous,
As in the Paul Greenberg discussion, you are missing the point bigtime.
"A movie reinforces the fantasy. It brings the fantasy to life, but the reality is if you make your decisions on it, you will FAIL."
Tell that to the thousands, tens of thousands, of women who consciously and proudly imitate characters from Sex And The City. Ditto guys trying to act like playboys or frat guys they read about in Maxim or Rolling Stone, or what they hear in rap.
What you don't seem to want to acknowledge is that Hollywood films are a huge influence on how people both view and shape reality. (Just like television commercials for home products that always paint the man as a doofus.)
I'd venture to say the majority of people can't "go their own way," and can only live life by imitating what they see from their parents, friends, magazines, films, whatever. I don't want to sound like a culture warrior here but our popular culture is screwed up and is normalizing dysfunction by providing America with all sorts of bad examples for how to act and how to think.
Cham,
When I've run Larry's experiment in the past, I've stopped after two or three, out of sheer boredom.
Maybe it's because people assigned "high value" by society (trading on their looks) don't have any real reason to be interesting in public?
I disagree. When a guy that's a 5 or 6 jumps up to 10, who is going to be there for the uglish chubby chicks?
They can't expect to get a really great looking guy who would have matched up with the 10 the 5 guy got.
I mean, all the really great looking guys are gay, so there's no cross-pollination there. You just end up with a lot of old maids.
Only takes 3 things for a 5-6 guy to get a 10 woman:
1) Have money
2) Make them laugh
3) Have money
Saw it last weekend with my wife, and we laughed a lot. It's not "The Taming of the Shrew," but it's not complete crap, either. Fun, a little raunchy in plays, but ultimately sweet.
I haven't seen the movie but I have seen the trailer for it, so I would like to make a comment about it. I would assume the part about the underwear was playing to men's subconscious. Biologists have pointed out that men think about sex a lot, they think about having sex with many different hot women a lot. So if you include a scene where a beautiful woman would enthusiastically admit to a bunch of men that she wasn't wearing underwear while clad in a billowing sundress, a man might conclude the woman was making herself available for sex. This would entice the man to want to see the movie, because in this movie women make themselves available for sex which may not be happening for men in real life.
Now, what we have here is a bit of a double standard. Because in real life we have lots of men that are angered that too many women are making themselves too available for sex and aren't staying celibate and virginal until they marry, which according to some men is the cause of the undoing of American society.
How would men feel if your daughters proudly proclaimed to men they didn't know that they weren't wearing any underwear? I'm also a bit concerned that young girls will see the trailer for the movie and feel this is appropriate behavior. Here is a link to the trailer. The scene I'm talking about occurs at about 1:15 minutes into it, but first notice that this trailer is approved for ALL audiences, which I find more than a bit disturbing.
I hate it when a woman calls me superficial. Unless she's really hot.
Joe said...
"I saw the promo for this movie, and said to myself "This is exactly like Chuck" (the NBC show). Semi-loser nerd goes after the hot, accomplished blonde."
Sort of. Except Chuck is a smart guy with a lot going for him who made a couple mistakes that put him in limbo (ie, was just a couple classes short of graduating from college, et cetera). That and half of his dorkness is related to being 'a nice guy' rather than a 'looser'.
Helen,
Haven't you yourself proved that a guy who's a dork (nerd, geek, whatever) can get a girl who's a 10?
'Course, Glenn doesn't have any noticeable laziness or self-esteem issues -- and I won't comment on his relative pulchritude!
Topher "Tell that to the thousands, tens of thousands, of women who consciously and proudly imitate characters from Sex And The City."
This proves that romantic movies came first. It's not about a reality that later was dramatized into a movie. Besides, imitating the fictional characters is what everyone does to a certain level, but the reality is you will FAIL in your relationships by following the example. Or you will be a stalker since many of these movies tell you to persist when rejected. In every romantic movie, the guy gets the girl or the girl gets the guy no matter how ridiculous and dangerous the methods.
The real reality is that no matter what a guy looks like, no matter how smart he is, no matter how charming and considerate he is, no matter how funny he is, no matter if he's a good conversationalist, no matter if he has the lovemaking skills to put Casanova to shame, the bottom line is still the bottom line. If a man has no money, he's not going to have a woman either. Just look at the ads on Craigslist. Most of the W4M ads specify "financially secure".
If his wallet's fat, that's where it's at.
The vast majority of women, if forced to choose between a life of poverty with the man they love or a life of financial security for them and their children with a rich man she doesn't love, 99 women out of 100 will go with the $.
Women love their daughters, themselves, their mothers and their sisters. Anyone with a Y chromosome is at the bottom of the list.
I haven't seen this movie and don't intend to. From what I've read here, there's a good reason for that.
Oh, so she's a lawyer with a hot body. What that means to me is, in reality, she's up to her eyeballs in student loan debt, got her degree and license through affirmative action, and her only interest in a man would be how well he can provide her with finances.
This is the great illusion. The simple fact is the US has 5% of the world population, and 70% of the lawyers. There aren't enough clients to go around. This is why the average lawyer makes around $35,000/year, less than a school teacher. That's a fact.
Most people who have law degrees, or even law licenses, don't practice law. The work in county clerks offices or title companies or teach. While walking around thinking they're better than everyone else.
I happen to know a lot of lawyers. Most of them are really stupid. They can't read and understand a written contract, much less fill one out.
So, this is your business plan? Go deeply into debt to get a college degree and a law degree (7 years of education) to get a license so you can enter into a job market supersaturated with competition. All to make less money than a teacher.
It's ridiculous. This movie apparently plays into the worst illusions of the education establishment. Read The Millionaire Next Door. The three careers that have the least likelihood of generating a net worth of $1 million by retirement are the three status careers--doctor, lawyer, professor.
I know an air conditioning repairman who earns more money, owns more land and has a higher net worth than any lawyer I work with. Go figure.
If I met a woman, it wouldn't matter in the least to me what she looked like, how hot her body was, how good she was in bed, that she could suck a golf ball through a garden hose. As soon as I found out she was a lawyer, I'd head for the hills.
Oh, I might have sex with her once before I ran away. But the bottom line is that she'd have DUMP written all over her.
I'd rather have the money.
Gawain and other posters I like and respect have really gone bonkers over this flick. With all the superficiality and misandrism in the media, I know it's difficult to believe there'd be a movie with two basically good, decent people at its center who aren't out-manipulating one another. If you don't want to see it that's fine, but if you aren't going to then stop projecting (no pun intended) your own hot topics or pressure points onto the movie.
Dr, Smith, what society has ever existed in which men preferred less attractive to more attractive women? Since physical attractiveness is generally speaking a proxy for health and fertility, what's odd about such a preference?
You *DO NOT* need money to get a girl. Run that through your head again and again.
Sure, you won't land some high strung, high testosterone Alpha chick lawyer if you are a deadbeat.
BUT! Look at any alpha male, moody starving artist type. Or maybe a thug badboy. These guys get ladies hand-over-fist. Yes, many are girls that are low class. Many are also very hot.
Money is a correlation. Status is what attracts women most often; couple it with intelligence, sense of humor and being somewhat tall - and you are a lady killer.
My best friend is a 6'3" semi-employed construction guy, not very bright, but he knows how to talk to ladies. Hes always broke, and the girls will pay for the dates. See, he *acts* like the king of the castle because he *thinks* he is. It shows in his demeanor, body language and cocky jokes.
As I said, I have not seen this movie and do not intend to. The salient point of my post was based of what I've read here, that she's a lawyer who has a hot body.
Anyone who knows the facts knows that law school is one of the worst investments a man or woman can make these days. So the idea that she's a lawyer and he's a dork is ludicrous on its face.
Odds are that she's deeply in debt, barely able to manage her finances, and only wants a man to subsidize her debt. She ought to marry an a/c repairman. He has money. But if he knew anything about money, he wouldn't have anything to do with her.
What does she have to offer him? Sex in exchange for debt. If he were any kind of man at all, he already had sex with her for practically nothing. So, after the fact, what would be the point of marrying her? To exchange additional sex for more debt.
The plot of this movie is ridiculous.
Gawain,
Except that's not the plot of the movie. I'll throw some spoilers. (SPOILER ALERT for those who care.) The guy is a high school graduate TSA agent, not exactly rolling in dough and he lives with his parents.
She's from a successful family and has no debt she speaks of. Decided to drop out of law school and goes into event planning.
It's a freaking movie, designed to warm the cockles with the premise of "what if we didn't do the sex-for-debt dance?"
Again, you don't have to see the movie if you don't want to. But this might keep you from looking like an idiot if you go to a party and start ranting about the film and everybody looks at you like "did we see the same movie?"
"You *DO NOT* need money to get a girl. Run that through your head again and again. "
YES! If you can only get girls using money, or think you can only get girls using money, that's a strong sign you need to up your skills in the Venusian arts.
Now, Cosmo will tell you to never use a coupon to impress a woman with your financial capacity. Similarly, skill sets like Leykis 101 involve _emulating_ a high-rolling playboy to get girls in the sack, then ditching them and finding new ones. But you shouldn't even have to _act_ like a rich guy - you don't need to flash money to get girls to be interested in you!
Also, if you find yourself around a lot of women who judge men on money, find a new place to hang out. Finance should be important when _anybody_ thinks about marriage, but there are people who want to start with intangibles and move on to the balance sheet later.
I'll read a Dr. Helen post anytime but I think I'll skip this movie, thanks.
Topher, the only one who comes out looking like an idiot is you.
As I said, I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to. I'm only going by what I've read on this thread.
Why don't you address the central point of my argument, that getting a law degree these days is a loser's prospect?
It couldn't possibly be because you buy into the illusion, could it?
I could care less about what she looks like, how hot her body is, the only thing that matters to me is what she has to offer. If it's only sex in exchange for debt, then I'm not about to make that deal. Only a fool would. And I am not a fool.
Topher said...
"No. It's not my kind of movie."
That's fine, but don't make unfounded speculations on the Internet about it if you aren't interested in availing yourself of the facts.
Willful ignorance combined with confirmation bias is a common American syndrome.
Excuse me. To accuse me of willful ignorance when I've seen enough of these types of movies to not avail myself to have a modicum of understanding to what the overall underpinning is ignorance unto itself. Considering the larger overall picture of how men are treated in modern mass media to begin with, I seriously doubt that not seeing one of these movies will do my 'confirmation bias' any harm. Statistically speaking the bias is self evident on full display.
One doesn't have to directly experience something to be able to have an illicit a fairly reasonable conclusion. There is enough theory on the idea that I've presented in modern mass media on how men are treated to give a fairly fair evaluation on overall context of this movie without having to actually have seen it. I've seen the several commercials for it and it's fairly easy to glean the content as I've presented it.
As to your charge of me suffering from American Syndrome, only two words suffice. Fuck you. If you don't like that, then fuck you again.
"It couldn't possibly be because you buy into the illusion, could it?"
What in the hell are you talking about? I hate lawyers. The movie (which, if you missed the memo, is what this thread is discussing) didn't have anything to do with anybody's law degree, it was a minor piece of a character that didn't affect the plot one iota. There's no sex for debt going on, Apparently you think that makes the film ludicrous. You don't even want to discuss the topic of the post, you want to hijack the thread into a discussion of a theoretical education prostitute.
It's this kind of one-track mindedness that makes critics say "all you Dr Helen readers are just bitter guys who've been burned."
A PLAY titled "You can't tell me otherwise!"
Starring Methadras
Setting: the Internets
SCENE ONE
Dr Helen: "This movie is pretty funny, and a lot better than those dumb-dude movies they make."
M: "This movie is just like other misandrist chick flicks."
T: "You know, why don't you see it, because as Dr Helen has noted it's not really how you think it is."
M: "No, I've seen other movies like it and even though I don't want to see it I'm going to talk about how I know what's in it, even though I didn't see it, and O won't consider anybody's word who saw it that it might not fit my preconceived notions, even though I haven't seen it."
Narrator: "Proof by presumption, how enlightened."
END
'I know an air conditioning repairman who earns more money, owns more land and has a higher net worth than any lawyer I work with. Go figure'
Not surprising at all. Having money is only partially a function of high income or low income (though obviously that matters), it's also about money management in a big way, and that's something that is not taught in most schools at any level, or when it is what is taught is nonsense.
This is an odd parallel with the comments above about how poisonous the nonsense popular culture feeds us about romnatic relationships is.
Just as trying to live your life like a character in a romance movie (or action movie for that matter) won't work, neither will you ever be able to handle money the way movie/TV characters tend to do. The example is equally unrealistic and often subcosciously copied even so.
Topher said...
A PLAY titled "You can't tell me otherwise!"
Starring Methadras
Setting: the Internets
SCENE ONE
Dr Helen: "This movie is pretty funny, and a lot better than those dumb-dude movies they make."
M: "This movie is just like other misandrist chick flicks."
T: "You know, why don't you see it, because as Dr Helen has noted it's not really how you think it is."
M: "No, I've seen other movies like it and even though I don't want to see it I'm going to talk about how I know what's in it, even though I didn't see it, and O won't consider anybody's word who saw it that it might not fit my preconceived notions, even though I haven't seen it."
Narrator: "Proof by presumption, how enlightened."
END
That was nice Topher. Made me chuckle. But you've set up an interesting experiment. I'll tell you what, if I see this movie and still come away with the same conclusion, then you will say or do what? Make up more little word plays in your head to satisfy your delusion?
Fuck it... You know what, you've convinced me that I should go and spend my hard earned $10, see this movie, and come back and give you an honest assessment just to let your overly tightened sphincter relax a little bit. I'll let you know how it goes and when my wife asks me why in the wide world of fuck I'm going to see a chick flick by myself, then I'll just look at her and say lovingly, "Oh, well, it's because Topher, some guy on the internet, asked me to."
"Who the fuck is Topher?" she will say and I'll tell her "Oh, well Topher is a bastion and a wealth of information on how I should make presumptions about things he thinks I don't understand. He feels that because I think this movie has a built in level of misandrism in it that I've misjudged it poorly and that it isn't the case. So he's trying to convince me that if I see this movie that it will enrich my life and I will change my mind and in doing so I will not be a typical American who uses presumptions based on past experiences as a basis for a working theory about how modern mass media portrays men as man babies who need women to come and save them from themselves and should feel honored and blessed that a 10 can bring herself down to be with a 5."
"Are you fucking nuts? Why would you do what a guy you don't know asks you on the internet?" she would go on to further illicit and I would tell her that "Honey, I mean, come on. It's Topher. I feel utterly compelled to see what Topher is seeing. Afterall, he's been so adamant that I've got it wrong, that he's gone out of his way to actually formulate a little play for me to prove me wrong. Isn't that cute?"
"Topher is a fag."
"Yeah, I know."
The point being missed in all this discussion is that the woman in question is a LAWYER with a hot body. I suppose that makes her better than the man chasing her, out of his league. Would it make any difference if she were a waitress with a hot body?
No. Or yes. The fact that she's a LAWYER proves that she's smarter than him, since most guys are too stupid to get into law school, you understand. A plumber that makes more money than she does is beneath her. Do you get it now?
I think this whole discussion is ridiculous.
The point being missed in all this discussion is that the woman in question is a LAWYER with a hot body.f
No, dumb ass. She dropped out of law school. You're so busy arguing a point that you're failing to read clearly. Here's what Topher wrote:
She's from a successful family and has no debt she speaks of. Decided to drop out of law school and goes into event planning
What part of "dropped out of law school" don't you understand? It's just a freaking movie. I have not seen it and neither have you. If you don't want to see it, fine. Neither will I. Get over yourself.
Not wanting to be left out of the mud being flung in all directions, but also being cheap, I have decided to wait until it comes out on DVD for sale. It will probably cost no more than a theater visit, and much less than a ticket, pop corn, drink, and box of goobers.
Speaking of goobers.... snorffle!
Post a Comment
<< Home