Chick Flicks or Dick Flicks

Chick Flicks: Movies with a gorgeous, sensitive man who is only thought of as a contender for love when the beautiful female protagonist goes through her bad boy phase and determines she loved her aforementioned gorgeous, sensitive man all along.

Dick Flicks: Explosions. Heists. Boobs. More explosions.


Now, it’s pretty obvious, based on the name alone, the audience each of those movies is aimed for. Relationships are for girls. Action is for boys. Now this isn’t some nazi feminist post. It would be highly hypocritical of me if it was because the stereotypical chick flick movies are essentially all I watch. The reasoning may not be what you would have expected though..

Here’s a little tidbit about me in case you ever find yourself watching a movie and have me as company: I literally psychoanalyze every little detail. It’s like my brain is using all of it’s processing power to find plot holes, inconsistencies, or other little errors made by the director, producer, writer, or whomever. I find that I put the movies I watch in my short-term memory because keeping all that information locked up in my head is too much. It’s great, because that just means when I watch the movie a couple months later, it’s as if I’m watching it for the first time again. I digress though. Since I’m unconsciously trying to ruin the movie in my mind by searching for where the movie people erred, I find watching movies a bit stressful. After a long day of working, communicating, thinking, coding, and all the other things adults have to do, I just want to turn off my brain for a while and turn on something enjoyable. Well, it turns out action movies (dick flicks), are made to be somewhat stressful already with how the plot progresses. With the vast number of explosions, blood, gore, plot twists, etc. there’s quite a bit of room left for inconsistencies. And trust me, I find them. So let’s just add more stress to an already stressful movie. Now, when I turn on a chick flick (typically something bad), there are just so many smh, did that just happen, omg this is dumb moments, that my brain is essentially like, “there are just too many plot holes, I’m going to just give up and accept defeat.” While many people vote movies like that to be terrible since nothing really makes sense, I say HOORAY! The number of crappy chick flicks I’ve seen is actually quite embarrassing because I can just sit here and bask in the terribleness of it all. And my brain just shuts off – exactly what I want. I’m pretty sure there have been points where the shit-factor of a movie has literally caused me to lose a few brain cells, but it’s the price you pay for truly thoughtless time.

Now to branch off again, my favorite movies have actually been ones where chick flicks and dick flicks find a common ground. Including heist with romance. Explosions with affection. Love with emotions. In my opinion, those movies are tougher to produce because you’re attempting to captivate a larger audience, and for a movie like that to be successful, you’ve really got to spend a serious amount of time coming up with a plot that makes sense. Where everything isn’t sporadic and confusing, but rather meshes well together. Tone it down enough on both ends where it doesn’t end up being categorized for one over the other. It’s tough, but let’s see some di/chi-ck flicks!

So, to clear things up, I’m a girl who watches chick flicks; however, I’m not obsessed with needing to be in a relationship, getting married, having babies, gossiping , or any of that. It’s more of a mindless couple hours. And I love my fair share of dick flicks too!

PS: Movie peeps, find someone to look over your script to make sure everything makes sense. It truly is amazing when a movie has minimal/no plot holes!


The Collegiate Sports Dictator aka the NCAA

OMG first post, and what a heavy topic to start off with. Well, here goes! The National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) is a topic I’m discussing in one of my classes, and wow, that organization is controlling. I feel that their slogan should be “Oppressed at last, oppressed at last, thank NCAA we are oppressed at last!” Seriously, ask any current or former college athlete. They can go on for hours about the insane NCAA rules, I mean, seriously… over 400 pages of mandates that you’re supposed to read cover-to-cover when signing your contract. And that book is filled with the most ridiculous rules. Here, let me demonstrate: NCAA rules allow coaches to give their athletes a bagel, but if it has anything on it such as cream cheese, that’s a violation! What about a football player who sent an email to his tutor to look over an English paper — a paper that came back with very few edits may I add — and two years later, he gets kicked off the team because it violated NCAA rules? Like…WHAT?! And that’s only some of the craziness of the NCAA.

The example that really broke my heart though was the story of Kent Waldrep. His story was explained in “Schooled: The Price of College Sports” (the film I watched in my class) or just Google him to learn more. Texan Christian University (TCU) football was very important, as it is at most universities in the United States. Waldrep left his family to get an education and play tailback for TCU. After taking a handoff to the right, Waldrep had his legs flung under him, and he landed hard on the back of his head. Waldrep, once such a promising athlete, was now paralyzed from the shoulders down on impact. Never again did he stand on his own feet. How does this relate to the NCAA you may ask? Well it all comes down to the “student-athlete” title and the idea of amateurism. These so called “student-athletes” are “students first.” This is the NCAA’s very clever way to get out of many paying workers compensation because student-athletes aren’t employees. When Waldrep asked for workman’s compensation for his injury, the court ruled that he was not an employee as declared by the NCAA rules, and therefore did not qualify. That young man faced a lifetime of pain, and wouldn’t even get compensated for it. That’s just straight up ridiculous! He is bringing in money for the university with his skills. If that’s not an employee, I guess I’m not really sure what is. True, employees get paid, but student-athletes are getting paid in a way. That’s a pretty good segway into my next point.

Let’s talk about whether college athletes should get paid. I read an article by Paul Daugherty, “College Athletes Already Have Advantages and Shouldn’t Be Paid.” It had a different stance than most articles I read in that class, and to be honest, the article I most agreed with. The exploitation of the NCAA has been a hot topic recently, and there has been a back-and-forth about whether “student-athletes” should receive more compensation for their efforts. I’m very passionate about this debate because I’ve spent some time researching both sides. Daugherty’s stance is most similar to how I feel.

I had the opportunity to join a NCAA team in college with a scholarship before an injury, and I felt it to be an amazing opportunity. I knew the commitment was intense, but I had already experienced 4-5 hour training days with tournaments every weekend and full IB classes. With the scholarship, I wouldn’t have to dish out hundreds of thousands of dollars for an education – something I couldn’t afford without loans. As Daugherty well put it, “college is a privilege” and I wouldn’t be able to attend that particular school without the scholarship. Even as I attend the University of Washington now, a university with a far lower tuition cost that the aforementioned university, I still have to work many hours to pay tuition costs. I can relate to the students in Daugherty’s class that had trouble staying awake because of late work the night before. And even though I put in similar amounts of work as student-athletes have (as determined by what was mentioned by some student-athletes in class), I still wasn’t earning enough to pay tuition costs, let alone housing and food. Student-athletes are being paid for their work with their scholarships. The money they would have spent paying for college these student-athletes get to keep. This money they can use to buy food, or anything else that they desire. In most cases, these student-athletes, by not having to pay tuition, inherently “get paid” more than students would get by working a part-time job. The currency is just a different form. Student-athletes get a “gift card” for thousands of dollars that they would have used to pay for college, and students with jobs get paychecks that they can use for anything, but use to pay for college anyway. Ultimately, the result is the same, but these student-athletes end up earning more for their “skilled labor” versus “unskilled labor” for students’ part-time jobs. One thing I strongly disagree that the NCAA does is their claim that student-athletes are not employees. Every aspect of what they do makes them employees for the university – using their skills to earn the university money.

Paying athletes would cause more complications, and perhaps even cheapen the sport. In class, there we’ve seen clips of student-athletes not being able to afford food because they weren’t getting paid for their work, but students are in the same position. They have to pay tuition, and sometimes, there may not be enough money left over for food. It is a great addition that the NCAA has provided unlimited meals and snacks for the athletes so they don’t have to play a sport on an empty stomach, and risk injuries. The rules of the NCAA are unnecessarily overbearing, and I believe athletes that no longer attend and play for a school should be paid for their image since they are no longer “working” for their university. I’m not arguing that being a student is more of a challenge than being an athlete, but they are comparable in many ways. Student-athletes are already saving so much of the money that they would have to spend to attend college through their scholarships, and getting paid more seems unnecessary, at least through the eyes of a working college student.

The NCAA has been changing some of its rules, and allowing athletes more freedom. Hopefully the trend continues, but I don’t believe paying athletes more on top of their scholarship is the route to go.