December 09, 2007
More Brains Equals Less Happiness (with related Jumbled Thoughts on anti-Bush/anti-Jock sentiment)
Too little time to ramble appropriately. But here's a jumble of semi-related issues on nerd alienation, anti-Bushism and anti-jockism. First, the comments to this posted article on growing up brainy but inevitably unhappy are interesting, even touching (the comments are more interesting than the article). Though myself a fully formed non-jock last-picked-for-any-team somewhat "brainy" nerd, I nevertheless experienced less trauma than these folks did with "jocks" and other less eggheady types. Perhaps because the school environments I had were not too pro-jock, and were definitely pro-nerd. (That didn't stop all of the usual expected adolescent brutality and social ineptness coming my way, however). Then, I jump below to a bunch of slightly related half-formed theories here, going from the social exclusion of nerds to a distantly related political one: a working theory that alot of anti-Bush personal (not political) sentiment is fundamentally anti-jock resentment by nerds. To which discussion I append an appreciation of jocks.
Bush himself only rated a jock--wannabe (he was a male cheerleader), but he was definitely part of that culture, as was his VP. (I do get the impression that Republican candidates tend to be ex-jocks or jock-fans in far greater degree than Democrats.)
Anyway, my point is that those out there (I mean Americans primarily) who really hate hate hate Bush may do so because of anti-jock outlooks or experiences. And by Bush-hater, I mean, well you know who you are. I am speaking to and of those of you who know darn well they would have hated George W Bush if he stayed a baseball team owner, and never got near a campaign, a law, Guantanamo, or Iraq. Something about his alleged swagger and smirk.
To phrase it another way: you don't hate Bush for what he does, but for who he is. You know who you are. What is it, and is the anti-jock sentiment theory a bit true?
Jock Appreciation Day
One reason though I think I don't or didn't have problems with jocks or related resentments is that I was never particularly or chronically ill-treated, and even managed to make friends by removing thorns from some of their paws. Another may be my complete deficiency in one of the seven deadly sins: envy. (Don't know it, don't get it). So when a swaggering male bimbo won the hearts of the pretty girls, and admiration of the guys, my attitude was and is an unabashed "good for him". (This may also explain my lack of resentment over "the rich" and CEOs and "big corporations" etc., complete dysfunction of the envy gene which I think underlies alot of the hostility, and don't deny it, lefties.) It may somewhat also explain why I have little if any personal antipathy to George W Bush despite complete renunciation of the wisdom or morality of the direction in which he has gone.
But on the more general issue, I have to say it: I respect and appreciate jockdom. I am not a regular sports fan but I do "get it". And I admire the strength and tenacity of people who can bash into others, or the ground and walls, and then come back for more. Someone has to be strong, pain-enduring, and committed, physically as well as mentally. They do it. They work hard to fulfill themselves and entertain others in doing so.
Maybe not to the level of "more power to 'em", but certainly affording all due respect and no undue disrespect.
They do what they do well and I don't. All the more reason for respect.
Posting a pro-jock argument on a decidedly nerdy website, you must be a jock yourself.
This discussion could go anywhere. I think I despise Bush, certainly because of his uncaring malignity, but also a great deal because of his incompetence: If you have to be fascist, at least do it right, instead of the Laurel & Hardy version. Americans are just no good at fascism, leave that to Europeans.
"...you must be a jock yourself."
Please, the only goals I ever scored were "own". And even those were by accident.
Posted by: matthew hogan at December 9, 2007 09:36 PM
Nice answer. Makes sense, sort of, as he had a record for failure EXCEPT, depending on partisanship, as Governor of Texas, for whatever reason that might be.
Posted by: matthew hogan at December 9, 2007 09:43 PM
By that I mean that is a clear fault of GWB that preceded the exercise of Presidency, though for me personally, it doesn't evoke much hostility as failure and I can meet occasionally, or more, and I don't want to tick it off unnecesarily.
Posted by: matthew hogan at December 9, 2007 09:45 PM
Yeah, but you're not the prez... It really does tick me off to have an utter failure of a human being command the most powerful nation on Earth. To have to listen to him speak...
Wonder how Jeb would've been. More like pops, I suppose, though I actually don't know a lot about Jeb.
I think you are straying dangerously close to equating anti-jock sentiment with anti-idiot sentiment.
I confess wholeheartedly to the latter, but hey, some of my best friends are jocks!
Posted by: Eva Luna at December 10, 2007 10:24 AM
The comments about women discussing celebrity tabloid trash to the exclusion of everything else were depressingly accurate.
Posted by: eerie at December 10, 2007 12:08 PM
Read the discussion thread on this unrelated post on 9/11-stuff, one makes the argument guys who liked Led Zeppelin were jocks. So I thought of this thread. Bit too young to know, but is there something to it?
LZ was popular (no admission as to whether i am old enough to remember, but may possibly be) primarily among the "freaks", stoners, but also among the frat boy types when drunk.
Generally, they were also generally popular and well-regarded, for their type, except by the critic-class.
Posted by: matthew hogan at December 13, 2007 07:42 PM
I should suspect that in the intellectual Left spectrum where one does find a large portion of the brainy and under socialised, yes hatred of jocks and such persona may be driver.
At the same time, I hardly should think it is a terribly important aspect - I may be poorly placed to judge such things, but it I never personally thought of Bush as a sporting type (yes, I know the baseball ownership stint, but...) as such.
The connexion may be that he perhaps responds to the "dumb jock" stereotype, not terribly articulate, perhaps moderate in intelligence but not particularly inquisitive, etc.
Shall we say politely, not the innovative team captian with physical skill and mental fortitude, but the solid mate who knows the rules of the sport, the team, etc. And who should, despite team spirit, never be made captain as he is fundamentally dim.
Posted by: The Lounsbury at December 14, 2007 03:26 PM
Over here I think he has closer to that image, perhaps because of my past Texas experience I see and saw it more so.
Posted by: matthew hogan at December 15, 2007 10:17 PM