“I don’t know, I just kind of want to join their blog, because, and I know this is bad, but I just cannot STAND to only be talking to groups of WOMEN all the time. That’s bad. I know that’s bad. There is just so much SUBTEXT and you always have to be clarifying that I-don’t-mean-to-say-that-so-and-so and I only get to talk about CHILDREN and I just miss having REAL CONVERSATIONS do you know what I MEAN?”
(reaches for Blanton’s) “Yeah, I do know what you mean.”
“I am just SAYING and now I feel bad, because I don’t really mean that about only talking to women all the time, but it’s just – you know what? I *do* mean that. Everything has to be overanalyzed and I just cannot keep talking about PARENTING just because I am a WOMAN I mean when you are hanging out with guys you can just say what you MEAN, you know? Without all this worrying about what they are going to read into what you’re saying?”
(it has dawned upon him that there is no correct response in this situation. He tries to feign slumber).
“Why are you LOOKING at me like that? What are you THINKING? Are you thinking that I am just crazy? What does that look MEAN?”
Korrektiv: A child-free bastion of plain, direct speaking in a subtext-muddled, parenting-obsessed world
Yes, that’s it exactly.
A simple blog for simple folk.
Unless it’s all an inside joke.
A nudge, a wink, a jibe, a poke
We only fix what isn’t broke
ENVOI
So take your ease, and lean, and loaf –
Each risible, and every oaf!
BURMA-SHAVE
Male relationships are simple because they are based on the threat of violence. At some point someone has to kick someone’s ass. That’s just how we roll.
Occasionally we try to sublimate the violence into sports, and ‘outsource’ it into spectator sports. But even these become excuses for violence among players and spectators alike.
Your favorite blog sucks. No, YOU shut up.
Don’t you be dissing dotCommonweal!
TAGGED WITH: FATHER KEV KEVIN
Wrath, Caution
Interesting.
I can say with confidence, that I have truly subtext free relationships with a handful of women. They’re not on the internet though–where I think subtext is often inferred when one doesn’t hear just the right tone of voice. I will say, though, it took A LONG TIME to get to that point with them–dozens of years. Some are grade school friends, one’s my sister, my cousins, my friend Pedge. Of course there might be subtext there that I am missing, but I really think that over the years, all the complex feelings –towards kids and family life and “vocation” and each other yada yada– have been wrung out. We’re done measuring. We say what we think. If it hurts, we throw in a “sorry.”
My husband, on the other hand, is always asking me what I think of his tools and stuff.
…which, I guess, is pretty subtext free as well.
Shoot, I hope you didn’t infer by my comment that since you and I met one the internet that we have a subtext-full relationship.
And I also don’t mean to imply that you just haven’t invested enough in long-term female relationships.
Or that you need to pray more.
Or have more children.
Can we now consider my comment expunged of subtext?
OH NO YOU DIDN’T.
I actually posted this originally as Exhibit 974 that I continue to be What’s Wrong with America.
But I do need to pray more, and would love to have more children.
“Can we now consider my comment expunged of subtext?”
I can only imagine the subtext of a closing line like this one.
I fear you’re overlooking my primary subtext, which is that there’s a sexual subtext to all male/female relationships, and therefore, you’re all a bunch of harlots and Lotharios.
Sexual who to the what now?
I just don’t want anyone to overlook an opportunity to doubt themselves–is all–otherwise, the potential subtext could be wasted.
TAGGED WITH: OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELF-DOUBT, PRECIOUS, PRECIOUS SUBTEXT
Nonsense, Duffy. This is a purely spiritual undertaking, formed to counteract the overwhelming influence wielded by all of the other Catholic group blogs out there consisting of five women and one man.
I know you’ve prayerfully discerned your involvement here.
Somebody pass me the Blanton’s.
Hey Girl.
I find it shameful that society’s paranoid clinging to a patriarchal paradigm of traditional gender roles means that you assume there’s only a sexual subtext when in mixed company.
But we can still go for nachos.
I do like nachos.
Wake me when you play gay, Baby Goose.
TAGGED WITH: POTENTIALLY UNINTENTIONAL SUBTEXT, LET’S AGREE TO MOVE ON
My dad is from Poughkeepsie. Oh yeah, I went there.
About this whole gay subtext thing. When I am on my A-game I bring a lot of sexual energy to the party regardless of gender breakdown. I can’t really explain it. It’s part of being a mystic. It’s about living out there on the edge–a man of extremes. The edge equals power, and people are attracted to power. They see you take out a village by calling down fire, and that arouses carnal passions. Some people call it a gift. Some people call it a curse. I don’t know why the power was given to me. I didn’t make the rules.
TAGGED WITH: RA-RA-RASPUTIN
“When I am on my A-game I bring a lot of sexual energy to the party regardless of gender breakdown. ”
Rasputin? Or David Bowie? Maybe Enkidu?
Either way, I think we’ll send Shamhat to you before the party, and then you can just bring the artichoke dip.
That is too funny. LOL
Subtext we know.
But what do you call the message or meaning that’s right there on the surface, completely open and obvious? They never talk about that.
What do you call what’s above the subtext?
The text.
No, no, I know what Angelico’s talking about, it’s like, below the text, but above the actual subtext. Like when you know the person is looking at you, but you’re not sure if he’s giving you a look or if his face always looks like that when he’s looking at people. And you have to ask yourself, “Does his face always look like that?”
Did you know Whit Stillman directed an episode of “Homicide: Life on the Street?”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0604430/
I haven’t seen it, because I prefer good TV criticism.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Korrektiv’s first emoticon.
What I want to know is what’s the subtext below the subtext of the subtext???
)
It’s that you’all think because I’m blond I’m too dumb to understand what you’all are saying isn’t it!!!! (
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Korrektiv’s second emoticon. And first triple inquisitive/quadruple exclamation. A stupefyingly difficult combination, beautifully executed, and she totally stuck the landing.
That is a deep question, Mel.
I’ll content myself with knowing what is above the text.
Thanks for your blog. Good night.