e-disHarmony.

I remember a TV ad telling me that eHarmony.com uses a comprehensive database system to provide the most exact, reliable, successful method of matching up people with potential "soul mates," and that viewing these matches is completely free. Well, today I was bored, so I thought I might just see what kind of "soul mate" they could come up with for someone of my breed. After completing a 15-minute personality and preference survey, they gave me this:






















Rejected from online dating! How tragic! The most advanced matching system on the web, and I still come out single. It's like a big online joke, and this page is the glorious punchline. I like their line about how they "sometimes choose not to provide service rather than risk an uncertain match." Because I suppose they have their reputation to worry about; they wouldn't want to match a defective like me up with somebody who might complain.

Then again, they do mention that their matching system is created through research with married couples. Perhaps they could ascertain from my answers that I'm not the marrying type, so naturally I don't belong on a site that boasts "90 marriages a day." But I answered honestly, just as they asked. I also noticed that their questions seemed primarily concerned with how well you can solve conflicts and whether you are a "leader" or a "follower", as if it were some kind of job questionnaire. No room for followers here! Only leaders will get ahead in a relationship! Be firm and commanding with your employee/mate! Experience preferred!
.

"Daddy is the breadwinner..."

What happens when you re-dub Darth Vader's dialogue in the original Star Wars with snippets from other James Earl Jones movies? A brilliant side story about Vader losing his marbles. You dig that?

you're the one listening to it.

I thought I'd respond to an article that I read recently. I mean, feminism vs. emo? How can I resist? The article: Emo: Where the Girls Aren't by Jessica Hopper.

It is my belief that the guys in emo bands are merely the boy-band type who have undergone stylistic metamorphosis, emerging from their spike-studded chrysalis singing a song of self-pity instead of self-promotion. However, their lusts haven't changed; the girls they write their angsty songs about are essentially the same "summer girls" that those hair-gel models LFO wrote their shitty single about back in 1999. You remember; that ode to materialistic fetishism that boasted such poetry as "when I met you I said my name was Rich/you look like a girl from Abercrombie and Fitch." Back then, rich boys knew they could woo shallow teeny boppers by wearing confidence in the form of an expensive polo shirt.



These days, the emo boys have made a grand discovery; that if they act hurt and sensitive, not only will they attract the Abercrombie girls, but the Hot Topic girls as well. Their ballads about being fed up with flaky girls are nothing more than a means to attract more flaky girls. I suppose my main point is that any girl who actually listens to emo doesn't deserve "better songs" written about them. They date the misogynistic guy, they stroke his musical ego, and they proceed to buy the album he writes about their breakup. How can you rip the singer for being a jerk and a sore loser when the girl was only dating him to show off to her friends? The verdict: the poet and the muse are BOTH IDIOTS. Emo is silly overdramatic music written by silly overdramatic boys for silly overdramatic girls. Everyone else need only stand back and chuckle. So what is Ms. Hopper getting so worked up about?



Being from Punk Planet, which I believe is somewhere in the Iggypop System, she seems to be upset because Planet Emo, while quite a great distance from the Loureed Sun, is nonetheless eclipsing her own world and drawing several colonists of the younger generation. She realizes that, unfortunately, emo is what the kids are listening to these days, and she doesn't like the idea of such a dominant form of American rock music having such a damning message towards women. I guess I can agree with these sentiments, but I wouldn't prescribe Bikini Kill for this illness. Call me a fag, but I don't think the answer to whiny boy rock is obnoxious, aggressive grrrl rock. Early in the article she mentions being forced to retreat into the "cavelike recesses of electronic, DJ and experimental music." Oh, the horror! Music that doesn't have distorted guitars! So I guess her reasoning is that the only alternative to crappy anti-woman lyrics is crappy anti-men lyrics, or no lyrics at all. Hm. Such is life on Punk Planet...

I was afraid Ms. Hopper would bring up "Under My Thumb," and sure enough, here it is once again as exhibit B in the case against woman-bashing rock. It's become an old feminist favorite, hasn't it? Yeah, it's a rough song, but if you really want to toss The Rolling Stones in with the woman-hating emo, tie it up with a conversation you had with some jackass you associate with, and say "Here I have a bag full of reason to hate rock'n roll for being misogynist," I'm afraid it says more about you than about the history of pop music. Sure, it is true that a good 90% of rock songs - or pop songs in general - are written by men about women, but that isn't sexism. No, that's just the tail end of a couple thousand years of sexually frustrated, artistically-inclined men who want desperately to impress a woman but can't afford a Cadillac. But you see? That's a different can of worms altogether. And as far as Zeppelin goes, even die hard fans will agree that the band doesn't have the deepest lyrics. To attack "Communication Breakdown" on the grounds of it being misogynist is like shunning "You Are My Sunshine" for having rapist undertones.

One last thing: "We deserve better songs than any boy will ever write about us."

You're right. I'm going to tell Mozart, Beethoven, Gershwin, Elvis, Otis Redding, Bob Dylan, and The Beatles that they were all wasting their time. They can't hold a candle to Bikini Kill. And they better start saving for that Cadillac.
.