Tag Archives: Evan and Gordon Talk

Evan and Gordon Talk: Alcohol and Western Culture

Posted on March 20, 2013 by | 1 comment

EVAN: Alright, people of the internet, it’s time to stop correcting each other’s grammar in YouTube comments sections and start tuning in to the wisdom we’re about to drop out of our mouth-holes/fingertips.

On this installment of E&GT we will be discussing the ever-popular C2H5OH, more commonly known as alcohol, and how it’s treated in Western culture.

GORDON: Now right here we’re running up against a problem: “Western” culture isn’t exactly united on the subject of drinking. I mean, for the most part we’re fans, but there ARE some pretty distinct differences. For example, a severe alcoholic in Canada or America would in Europe be simply known as an Englishman.

EVAN: You make a very astute point, so I’m going to propose we boil this down to how North America [barring Mexico, sorry (though to be fair they should be used to this by now)] treats alcohol.

GORDON: Poor Mexico.

But let’s get right down to it and try to get a handle on the general stance we have on drinking in the west. We certainly like drinking, but drunkenness is largely viewed as something either juvenile or to be relegated to the weekends. Is that fair?

EVAN: Somewhat debatable.

GORDON: Then let’s debate.

EVAN: I suppose the question you have to ask yourself is who thinks it’s juvenile? I know a fair amount of people who consider it fairly normal to drink until they can’t see on the weekends, as regular and sacred a routine as my going to church on Sundays.

GORDON: I’ll admit freely that this does happen, but I wouldn’t say it’s what the average person does. In fact, the only people who really have the time and/or physical ability to do so are usually young people and students, bringing me back to the original point.

WHAT’S THE DEAL WITH YOUNG PEOPLE IN AMERICA [AND CANADA] AND BOOZE?

EVAN: I agree. So let’s talk about that. What’s the deal with young people in America [and Canada] and booze? Imagine I said that in a Jerry Seinfeld sort of voice.

GORDON: Well, Canada I can’t speak to as much, but I’d argue that the fact that booze is forbidden until the age of 21 has a lot to do with it. It turns alcohol, and to a similar degree, inebriation, into a taboo pleasure and a sign of rebellion and… well, I don’t want to say “maturity,” but I guess “adulthood” is gonna have to suffice.

EVAN: You’re preaching to the choir. A drinking age of 21 is levels of ridiculous, I mean, the only thing you can’t do at that age is rent a car [that’s at 25]. In Ontario the drinking age is 19, which is more or less what I imagined it would be when I was a kid.

GORDON: I’m guessing drinking doesn’t have quite the same mystique that it does in the US, huh?

EVAN: Well, to paint a picture of underage drinking, I visited Toronto for a summer while I was still living in Thailand. I must’ve been . . . sixteen, I guess. When I hung out with some former schoolmates a lot of what was talked about was fake IDs, and something called “drunk dial,” or something, which was apparently a number you could call where people of age would bring you booze for cash.

GORDON: Booze for cash? As opposed to what? Beads and trinkets? You have forever altered my image of Canadian society.

Youth drinking is such a small/easily dismissed part of drinking, though. What else is there to say?

EVAN: Well, it’s a pretty big deal, I mean, look at that new movie that has that Asian kid turning 21, or all of Superbad.

GORDON: So says the hyped-up Hollywood media. High school is nothing but a drug-frenzied orgy to listen to ’em.

EVAN: Dude, when people become of age a lot of them get smashed, this is a true fact.

GORDON: Hence the need to get rid of the drinking age.

EVAN: Okay, so we do away with the drinking age altogether. Now what?

GORDON: Now drinking isn’t something you get to do, it’s something that has to be earned. 21 isn’t some magical number at which you can do no wrong and drink as much as you’re able. Abuse will still be there, but ideally we’ll see a drop in a lot of the stupid binging for binging’s sake.

EVAN: Wait, so how would we earn the right to drink?

GORDON: Well, naturally there’s not going to be any universal standard. I’m hoping decent parenting and societal pressure will enforce general standards for drinking. An eighteen year old who doesn’t drive recklessly and maintains a general balanced perspective on life shouldn’t be barred from having a glass of wine with dinner, especially when his twenty-four year old brother who still acts like a four year old has no limitations in this regard.

EVAN: I just realized that in many Canadian provinces drinking with parental supervision is permitted. I cannot find anything to the same effect for the US. Wait. Hold the phone.

“…17 states do not ban underage consumption, and the remaining 18 states have family member and/or location exceptions to their underage consumption laws.”

GORDON: I’m pretty sure there’s one state somewhere in the Midwest with an old prohibition-era law stating that a minor can buy alcohol if accompanied by an adult, though only in very select situations; it’s pretty archaic.

Though let’s hash this out a bit- I’m guessing that most families aren’t going to be hosting chugging contests, or having little Timmy do tequila shots off the baby-seat.

EVAN: I don’t think that’s what people are worried about, though. I think the concern is more about fourteen-year-olds heading down to their local liquor store and buying a bottle of something that would kill an elephant.

Not to that extreme, of course, but at my old high school there was at least one kid who turned to drinking as a way to deal with stress.As to how, let it be known that you can buy beer at 7-11s in Thailand.

GORDON: You can buy anything in Thailand.

EVAN: You are not wrong.

GORDON: While I do absolutely agree with you, I think we’re asking the wrong question. It’s not “How can we stop kids from drinking” it’s “Why are kids drinking (stuff that would kill an elephant)?”

EVAN: It’s because, as we’ve said, it’s a taboo thing. I think what needs to happen is for us to somehow, in America and Canada, bring alcohol back to the level it currently is in Europe, where you can have wine on a table alongside your water and not have the kids think anything of it.

My question to you is how we change that Western way of viewing hooch.

GORDON: Well, I think the first step is to, like I said, abolish the drinking age.

From there I think it’s a matter of getting people to see drinking more realistically. Again- demystify

EVAN: I get what you said about nixing the drinking age, and we both admitted there may be a few issues there. How exactly are supposed to demystify, though? That was my question to begin with.

GORDON: Well, I don’t want to say we institute a campaign trying to portray the downsides of alcohol, but I imagine that’d backfire more than anything else. As surreal as it might sound, I’d say that more open drinking and easier access to drinking would be the answer. You get to see drinking in it’s entirety- the good stuff and the bad- without an agenda being shoved down your throat.

EVAN: My counterpoint to your suggestion that we should let loose on the public drinking is that we work on the institution that has so demonized the bottle.

Southern Baptists have been down on booze for quite the while, in spite of the fact that our Lord and Saviour partook of the fruit of the vine more than a few times in the Good Book.

GORDON: And the Wesleyans share their part in this. Though in regards to that, I’m not exactly sure how to argue with those people- what argument can I make that hasn’t already been made in the past couple hundred years?

EVAN: Yeah, I don’t know.

“You guys, Jesus drank. He drank with friends and enjoyed it, but he never got drunk. It’s cool, you guys.”

Anyway, we should start wrapping up. Do you want to give us a recap of what we’ve discussed?

GORDON: We’ll as great minds think alike, we’ve pretty much bagged on the existence of drinking ages, agreed that drinking among underage kids is a problem resulting from alcohol’s taboo nature, and batted around a few ideas for solving that problem- generally concluding that we need more drinking and exposure to it. That sound about right?

EVAN: I don’t necessarily think more people need to drink to increase awareness that it’s not a bad thing, but that’s more or less correct.

I wish I had a beer right now.

GORDON: Mmm. New Belgium is coming out with a new stout. It looks fantastic.

EVAN: Yeah, I don’t know a lot about beer past the fact that I wouldn’t mind a cold one right now.

GORDON: It would be refreshing. And speaking of which, we need a new topic for next week. I’ll keep with our discussion of vices and offer up the topic of Smoking and Society.

EVAN: That’s a pretty good one. I’ll propose that we discuss . . . dangit . . .

I’d say we should discuss this new season of Community, but that’d require you to watch all of the new season before next Tuesday night.

GORDON: I have way more free time than you think. It shall be done.

EVAN: Excellent.

GORDON: And so, our dear readers, here’s to you-

See you next time.

1 Comment

Posted in America, Canada, Evan and Gordon Talk, health, Youth

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: The Role of Religion in a Secular World

Posted on March 13, 2013 by | Leave a comment

GORDON: Dearly beloved, we are gathered here today before these witnesses to discuss the role of religion in our comparatively secular world.

Not too long ago, Evan and I discussed the subject of separating art from its artist, which brought up controversial science fiction writer Orson Scott Card, selected by DC to author a series of Superman comics.

Public outcry ensued as a result of OSC’s viciously homophobic views- including a statement advocating the overthrow of the American government should gay marriage ever be legalized.

EVAN: I am going to be honest and admit that I am counting down the second until this is over, when I get to finally play my copy of StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm.

That being said, this relates back to our talk because OSC’s views are deeply founded in his religion, Mormonism.

GORDON: Now back in that post, Evan asserted that OSC’s views were “reprehensible, regardless of where you stand.” Could you expound on that a bit for us?

EVAN: Well, the general consensus of the internet [from what I could tell] is that OSC is free to believe whatever he wants. If a man believed his cat created the universe he would, by anyone’s standards, certainly be wrong, but would not necessarily be chided for it.

People drew the line at Card’s support of organizations that were actively boycotting the legalization of gay marriage in America, as well as, like you said, advocating the overthrow of the government.

Homosexuality as a sin is something I think on almost every day, due to my belief that the Bible is without errancy and my observation that there is, from what I can see, absolutely nothing negative about a healthy homosexual relationship with another person. That being said, I am not about to cry that we burn down Parliament [or the White House, whatever] simply because the government allows two men to wed.

GORDON: So ultimately, your issue with OSC is that he shouldn’t let his personal views lead to him commit drastic acts?

EVAN: My personal issue, I suppose, is that he takes a stance that I’m already extremely uncomfortable with having and pushes it to its most extreme. That’s my honest answer.

On the surface, and certainly where I was last week or whenever it was, yes. Essentially that was where I was coming from, that his cry to overthrown the powers that be was an overreaction.

GORDON: And that’s certainly something that’s fair.

I often hear the argument that “You can’t force your religious views on others,” usually using a homophobic, sexist, or totalitarian agenda as an example. My issue with that has always been that you never hear the same people making that argument when something positive is on the table.

I’d probably reference John Brown, MLK Jr., Bonhoeffer, or Malcolm X as examples.

EVAN: I definitely agree with what you’re saying. Just regarding basic good behavior you never really hear people saying, “How dare you tell people to tell the truth and not murder and steal! Stop pushing your antiquated morals on the rest of us!”

GORDON: Exactly. That brings me to the core of the issue I wanted to hash out a bit: is militancy really a bad thing? Earlier today, I came across this image:

And I was kinda bugged by it. The implication seemed to be that Jimmy’s only two courses of action are silence or rage. I mean- if a friend posted something on Facebook I thought was incorrect, I don’t think I’d just ignore it.

EVAN: I rarely do when it comes to misspellings, grammatical issues, and anything regarding comic books.

GORDON: Exactly. If something is important to you, you should speak up about it, right? Heck, you shouldn’t you take direct action on it?

EVAN: I’m going to bring up an experience of mine that essentially no one knows about:

When I was much, much, much younger I thought it would be a good idea to evangelize to a classmate [this was in 8th Grade, I think]. It didn’t pan out the way I’d hoped, because they were quite satisfied with their own religious beliefs, and reasonably so.

The thing is, I was coming from a place where I thought I was doing the right thing. After all, if Christians really do believe that Jesus is “the way the truth and the life” and that no one gets to heaven except through him, isn’t there some sort of responsibility to tell others? And if there isn’t an onus, wouldn’t you want the people you care about to get in?

So yes, it was important to me, and no, I don’t think I went about it the right way. But I did take action, for better or for worse.

GORDON: Let me throw you an extreme scenario:

The government has decided to start indiscriminately throwing minorities into internment camps, dragging ’em out of their homes in the middle of the night because, I don’t know, if you don’t, the terrorists win. Do you take militant action?

EVAN: Would I directly oppose the government, you mean?

GORDON: Yes.

EVAN: Do I count as a minority?

GORDON: For the purposes of this example, yes.

EVAN: If I was not a minority I would probably act in the same capacity as those who hid Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe.

As a minority, I’m honestly not sure. I’m not particularly disposed to act violently, so I suppose I have to ask what you would deem as being “militant action.”

GORDON: But one way or another, your actions would be rooted in your understanding of your religious/moral code, right?

EVAN: Correct.

GORDON: So it’s not so much an issue of extremism, even in regards to religion- it’s just a question of the issue itself

In this case, OSC is a jerk not because he advocates the overthrow of the government, but because he makes that threat over something so benign as Adam and Steve getting a sheet of paper.

EVAN: I suppose it is contextual, yes. Though I’m sure there are people out there [myself not included] who would equate gay marriage with throwing babies into the Nile.

GORDON: This is indeed true. with that in mind, How do we address the question of the separation of church and state?

EVAN: That’s a really great question. I guess we have to ask how well of a job we’re doing with that at the moment.

GORDON: Not knowing the ins and outs of Canadian politics, I’m afraid I won’t be able to make so much of a universal statement. Speaking for myself, I prefer a pretty staunch elimination of the cosmetics of religion in my government.

Get “In God We Trust” off my money, take “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegiance. Though in total honesty, that’s more from a distrust of government in my religion than vice versa.

EVAN: The whole issue that “money is the root of all evil,” so why do we have religious institutions that have a net worth that goes into the billions? Yeah, I can be pretty into that sentiment.

GORDON: A very interesting topic, considering the elections currently going on in the Vatican.

EVAN: Well, the question we were presented today is what role does religion have to play in our increasingly secular world. In terms of Christianity, my hope is that its role is a positive one.

That Christians [myself included] can be seen as loving and not hateful [see: The Westboro Baptist Church], as giving and not selfish [see: most people in general], as willing to consciously process what we believe to be the truth instead of sticking to them blindly because they’re what we were told.

Christianity has changed a lot over the centuries without straying from what it is at its core. We can keep changing, we should keep thinking.

GORDON: So at the end of the day, religion becomes a social movement, rather than a distinct community or culture?

EVAN: I think that as a culture Christianity is, ideally, a social movement.

GORDON: So how do you reconcile other religions with this?

EVAN: Honestly it depends on the religion. I think Buddhism, when done right, more or less works along the same lines.

Are we counting Scientology as a religion and not a cult?

GORDON: Oooh. Them’s fighting words. Let’s call it a religion, for now.

EVAN: I suppose I would like every religion, Scientology included, to stick to my format of what I would like Christianity to be. If you hash out logically that alien soul debris is the cause of every human’s problems, more power to you; I have done the same thing in believing that a man who was also God died on a cross and was resurrected.

What’s really important is that we act on the positive aspects of our religious beliefs [taking care of the poor, not being dicks to one another] and really thinking upon our beliefs. Like I said, homosexuality as a sin does not at this point in my life make a lick of sense to me, and I continue to struggle with reconciling that with the rest of my faith. Make sure what you believe makes sense to you.

So as a TL;DR, do good things and think.

GORDON: Fair enough- but what about when it doesn’t work? There are plenty of vile groups out there whose diseased, twisted “logic” has led them to some pretty nasty conclusions. They’re obligated to act on those beliefs, right? How do you deal with conflicting agendas?

EVAN: How are they acting on these beliefs?

GORDON: Let’s say they’re banning the Hijab for Muslim Women; passing legislation on it.

EVAN: I’d say that infringes on basic human rights, and that people should stick to the words of public awareness campaign “If You See Something, Say Something.” People should protest.

GORDON: Certainly something we don’t get enough of. And with that, dearly beloved, we are out of time. 

EVAN: It’s creeping me out that you’re calling our readers that. Or me. That’s even more troubling.

GORDON: Imagine if I actually did have a cult following. How awesome would that be?

EVAN: Extremely troubling.

GORDON: I for one believe our readers have learned their lesson- I’d like to leave them the option of offering an “other” topic in the comment section.

EVAN: Guys and girls, this week we talked as much as we could upon the topic for the week, and were only able to get so far. So in addition to us possibly discussing what you want us to, next week you can possible look forward to us discussing:

GORDON: Violence in media: How much is not enough?

EVAN: Which you’ve written about before. I propose we talk about alcohol in our [Western] culture.

GORDON: I’m down with that.

EVAN: Thank you for wading through our back and forths, and we sincerely hope you join us again next week [and every weekday, really]. I am now off to go play some Heart of the Swarm.

Leave a comment

Posted in America, Christianity, Evan and Gordon Talk, internet, Islam, morality, religion

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: Our Ideal Women

Posted on February 13, 2013 by | 5 comments

EVAN: Welcome, one and all, young and old, to what I am dubbing as the first ever Valentine’s Day Edition of Evan and Gordon Talk!

I had originally come up with this topic to rile my co-writer, but then realized that it fit in perfectly with tomorrow’s holiday.

GORDON: Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t rile me. My vindictive co-writer understands that I am a deeply unemotional individual who knows more about the surface of the moon than human interactions.

EVAN: I had mostly planned on this being me asking Gordon about what traits he appreciates in a woman, and I will start thusly:

Gordon, what is the first thing you notice in a woman, physically [that appeals to you]?

GORDON: You know that I am partial to redheads.

EVAN: Our readership did not. What do you like about them, exactly?

GORDON: No reason springs to mind, I guess it’s just an irrational preference. Similar to your irrational detestation of the ladies of your own ethnicity.

EVAN: Oh, I don’t detest Asian women, I’m just not as attracted to them as almost any other race.  But we’re getting off topic, you can ask me potentially embarrassing questions in a moment.

What woman would you hold up above all others as an ideal example of physical beauty?

GORDON: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

This is beautiful to someone. Just not me. Or anyone I know. Or will ever know.

In my case, I’d cite Bryce Dallas Howard or Olivia Wilde as being prime examples. At least of physical attractiveness. 

Obviously there’s plenty more that goes into it.

EVAN: Like what? I mean, I know there’s more, but what else do you think there is to it?

GORDON: Intelligence, obviously, is a major factor.

EVAN: So what’s the standard for your future significant other?

GORDON: I’ve answered quite a few- I’ll let you answer that first.

EVAN: I’d like to be with a lady who reads. Not being able to talk to her about a book [or, let’s be honest, a comic] that I’m reading would be pretty terrible.

So reasonable well-read, I’d say. She doesn’t have to have read Joyce’s Ulysses, but knowing who the Romantics are would be nice.

GORDON: Certainly we can agree on this.

EVAN: Certainly.

I’m going to describe who I’ve always seen you marrying/dating, since I feel like it’ll touch on another area of life you deem very important.

I’ve always imagined you getting together with what you would call “a dirty hippy.” Dreads, doesn’t shower very often, a conscientious consumer in that she pays for products that are ethically produced, someone who goes to rallies but knows what exactly she’s protesting.

GORDON: This is the part where I’d describe who I’ve always thought you’d wind up being only, only I don’t speculate on that because I’m not a pervert.

EVAN: I feel like your skirting around the subject and avoidance of outright denying my speculation gives it validity.

GORDON: Then here is my outright denial: I don’t like hippies. They’re pacifists.

EVAN: Fine, she advocates violence in certain situations.

GORDON: I don’t like vegetarianism or veganism or any of those other affronts to god and nature.

EVAN: So you’re saying being a vegetarian is a deal-breaker for you?

GORDON: Totally. My little sister is a vegetarian, and I am so ashamed of the fact that I just tell people that she’s actually a meth dealer.

If cows had the chance, they’d kill you and everyone you love…

EVAN: While we as an audience are probably relieved that you would never date your sister, I think now would be a great time to list off the [presumably] many deal-breakers you have when it comes to a significant other.

GORDON: Emotions. Talkativeness. A need for companionship or validation of any kind. Playing any music which isn’t heavy metal without earphones. More than three pairs of shoes. Adherence to any political belief that Glenn Beck wouldn’t decry as being forged in the fires of hell.

This could go on, you know this.

EVAN: I’m going to take it from your second deal-breaker that you prefer your women to be seen and not heard. How are our readers supposed to perceive this?

GORDON: The readers can take it any way they want- my own point is that I don’t like people who I hang out with to have to talk, as a baffling number of people on this little blue rock apparently feel obliged to.

EVAN: You live a hard life, Gordon.

GORDON: I truly do.

EVAN: To switch our places while still hopefully making you equally uncomfortable, you can ask me a question about my feelings. My feelings about women.

GORDON: . . . why are you doing this to me?

EVAN: Gordon, I am doing this for our readers.

GORDON: In that case, I guess what the reader apparently wants to know is. . . I have no idea. I have literally no idea. . .

EVAN: Gordon, if a girl wanted to send you a Valentine, what sort of gift/card would you most appreciate?

GORDON: Can cigars count? You can write on the little labels. . .

EVAN: Only if we’re allowed to read something Freudian into your choice.

GORDON: Do I still get cigars?

EVAN: Sure.

GORDON: Then I can live with that.

EVAN: Conversely, what sort of Valentine would you give a girl?

GORDON: . . . Cigars? They’re like chocolate, only they don’t taste lousy and make a mess.

EVAN: Also, they don’t go straight to your thighs.

GORDON: This is true.

EVAN: I’m going to try to come up with one more question you don’t want to answer, and then we can wrap this up. When was the last time you had a crush on someone?

GORDON: Ah, an easy one. Never.

EVAN: The last time you considered a woman you saw to be very attractive [not counting on TV/on the internet]?

GORDON: That’d be when I went to Toronto with you. Though it must be noted that I had been stuck in a tiny college town with the same people for the past four years. So I wouldn’t put much stock in my judgment at that point.

EVAN: The women of Toronto will try not to read too much into your comment. And I suppose that brings this Special Evan and Gordon Talk Valentine’s Day Edition to a close!

GORDON: For next week, I suggest: Drugs, Legalization, and Culture. It won once before, I think it deserves another shot.

EVAN: Oh yeah, it did. I think we talked about Django instead.

I’m so pleased that this talk happened that I’m not really sure what else we could possibly talk about. Maybe separating art from its creator, and whether or not it’s possible [see: People boycotting Orson Scott Card’s new Superman miniseries due to his rampant homophobia].

GORDON: I’d be down with that.

EVAN: Cool stuff. You should end this by telling our readers how you feel about them.

GORDON: You people make me sick. Prying into a dude’s personal life at the cackling delight of Evan. He’s an impressionable child and easily led astray. You should be ashamed of yourselves for encouraging his bad behavior.

EVAN: I think you are all wonderful people, and should consider yourselves lucky to have been privy to Gordon’s life. Tune in next time, as always!

5 Comments

Posted in bizarreness, Evan and Gordon Talk, sex

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: Men and Manliness

Posted on February 6, 2013 by | 2 comments

GORDON: Moved by your incessant letters, as well as tearful pleas from more than one head of state, yours truly has returned for this and only this installment of Evan and Gordon Talk

You’re welcome, America.

EVAN: Truly, you are too gracious. [Also, we cater to an international readership].

This week the two of us will be discussing men and manliness [or masculinity]. Which makes perfect sense since we are, after all, men.

GORDON: MANLY men. We once made an axe using nothing but things we found in the woods. On the very same day, we built a grave for a drowned beaver.

EVAN: He is not lying. But, moving forward, one of the reasons I brought up this topic is because it’s loaded with possibilities. There’s the idea of the, for lack of a better term, the “Barney Stinson,” the fratbro who watches Spike TV day in and day and out, and this recent ad that appeared in The Times of India due to the gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old woman [click on the image to visit an article on it].

GORDON: Well, let’s narrow down some the of core qualities that make a man a man. Or at least, commonalities in all cultures and subcultures of what “manliness” is.

EVAN: How about- the ability to provide for one’s family.

GORDON: We’ll take it. Ability to defend oneself, with either words or deeds?

EVAN: I think we could expand that to simply being physically able. Physicality means both being able to defend oneself and loved ones as well as attack others for whatever reason you might have.

GORDON: Assertiveness- that’s it. Not taking guff from any of these swine.

EVAN: Who exactly “these swine” are aside, I’d also like to suggest that, in essentially every culture out there, manliness is directly associated with heterosexuality.

GORDON: The Spartans, actually, were unbelievably gay. Heck, the entire basis of western civilization is pretty gay. I want to strike that one from the record; highly sexual would probably be a better statement.

EVAN: I’m gonna have to stick by it. The majority of cultures out there use the term homosexual derogatorily, I think it’s hard to look past it.

GORDON: I guess I’ll allow it. Tough. A man is tough. Stoic. Potentially emotionless.

EVAN: That sounds pretty good to me. Want to total them up? Really just list ’em all out for us.

GORDON: [AND THEN GORDON LISTEN THEM ALL]

  • A man is tough.
  • A man provides for his family [loved ones].
  • A man doesn’t take **** from anyone.
  • A man gets it on.

Scratch that last one and you have the stereotype of a black woman.

EVAN: Okay, now rate yourself by that list of qualities.

GORDON: I realize that there are billions of people out there who have hellish existences, but taking in what I’ve dealt with in my own life, I’d say I’m pretty tough.

EVAN: You’re definitely pretty emotionless.

GORDON: I don’t have a family, but I certain provide for myself, proud proletarian that I am.

I’ve yet to be in a situation I’ve been unable to diffuse diplomatically, but I certainly have my limits and lines that I will not allow to be crossed.

And I view my sexuality as my own business. I ain’t exactly good with the ladies (see the emotionless bit), but I also think anyone who judges a man’s worth by his sexual activity isn’t worth the time of day anyhow (see the “no taking crap from anyone” bit).

Yeah, I’m a man. Or a woman. It kinda falls apart.

EVAN: A man is tough: I’m a pretty emotional dude. I distinctly remember crying after I saw A Walk To Remember. I was also 13, but I guess that’s neither here nor there.

A man provides for his family: Like you, I don’t have a family. I live with my granddad, though to be fair I do take care of him, so I’m good in that area.

A man don’t take none: I am not a confrontational person. I also can’t say I’ve been in a fight-or-flight situation, though, This remains to be seen, I guess.

A man get it on: Since I live by a certain religious standard, I have not yet gotten it on. See my post on virginity. I am a virgin.

A man don’t take none: I am not a confrontational person. I also can’t say I’ve been in a fight-or-flight situation, though, This remains to be seen, I guess.

So how do we stack up as men by most cultural standards?

GORDON: I think we stack up well, all things considered.

EVAN: Okay, I just remembered why I wanted to discuss this topic in the first place, and it pertains to the last manly attribute on our list [the one that we both happened to fail]:

Yes, this actually happened to me, gaze at it in all its glory.

Click on the image to read it in a new tab.

GORDON: . . .

How exactly does one respond to that?

EVAN: I’d say an ellipsis sums it up pretty well.

GORDON: Yeah, I’m going to call BS on that. I couldn’t begin to list the number of men who were celibate and achieved more in their lives than this guy ever will.

EVAN: Which I agree with completely. It is pretty messed up, though, how many people [guys] live by this rule of thumb.

GORDON: I think the point remains that this isn’t any reasonable way to spend one’s existence. Nikola Tesla accomplished more than a week than I imagine this guy fishing on Omegle will in his lifetime.

EVAN: To take a line from your book, touché.

GORDON: Going back to the original list, the issue is that most of this could just as easily be said of a woman. I work with people who are in pretty rough situations. Many of the women I work with a single mothers, living below the poverty line, struggling to provide for their families. Pride is really the only thing they have left. They don’t take crap from anyone, and they can’t allow themselves to be dragged down by their circumstances. Are they “manly” woman?

EVAN: I’d say that they fit three of the four categories, but it depends largely on how you want to view the word “tough.” I felt like we sort of defined it as having to do with emotions, which, and I don’t think I’m spouting insanity right now, are something that women seem to be pretty in touch with. Which would then put them at 2/4, or half the qualities.

GORDON: Certainly we can agree that these women quietly endure crap that would have most white-collar executives curled up in the shower weeping.

Barring the issue of promiscuity, everything we’ve covered would be- by our standards today and most standards the world over- “womanly” characteristics.

EVAN: Including the predilection towards physicality and violence towards others?

GORDON: You ever fought a woman?

EVAN: You know neither of us have ever fought anyone.

GORDON: Speak for yourself. I studied Judo for five years, and I had my share of matches against female opponents.

EVAN: We’re talking actual fights, though. Not martial arts matches with set rules and moves without the added chaos of scratching and biting [which I would probably carry out with gusto].

GORDON: Believe me, I got my butt handed to me plenty of times. There’s nothing but prejudice keeping women from being just as effective at fighting as men.

EVAN: Right, but that’s not a cultural expectation, is it?

GORDON: Not in this culture, no, but in other cultures this does exist. I’d point to the high numbers of women in the militaries of countries affected by leftist ideology- Nepal, for example

EVAN: We are talking the majority of cultures, though. Just as I don’t think I’d
equate homosexuality with “manliness” because the Spartans [who were very manly] engaged in it, I’m likewise not willing to accept that most societies placed women in that physically aggressive role.

GORDON: Point taken.

EVAN: But I get what you’re saying.

A number of the key qualities we defined as being “manly” are, in general, key qualities of being successful human beings.

GORDON: Exactly.

My entire issue with contemporary feminism is that it tries spin traditionally “feminine” (i.e. submissive, weak, emotional) traits as being equally as healthy- if not more so- than traditionally “masculine” traits rather than trying to divorce itself from the old “feminine” trait set entirely.

I like my women like I like my men: self-assured, tough, and independent. That probably didn’t come out quite the way I intended.

EVAN: Don’t worry, I took it at face value.

And, since we’ve successfully transitioned away from a discussion on masculinity towards more of one discussing feminism, I’m forced to admit that we are well past our time limit.

GORDON: That we can agree on.

Until we get internet, it’s radio silence on my end.

EVAN: So I suppose you’ll have to say good-bye to these nice people until then, while I scramble to maybe find a replacement writer for the next little while.

GORDON: For whenever I get back, I’d recommend that we talk about our generation’s greatest strength or victory, as we spoke a while ago about our generation’s greatest failing.

EVAN: And I am going to recommend . . . okay, this is ridiculous, but our ideal girl. Just because I know your answer is something everyone wants to read.

That is all for today, folks. I’d like to thank Gordon [who left before this conversation could end] for heading over to his grandparents’ and getting online for this, he’s a real champ. Thanks for reading!

2 Comments

Posted in Evan and Gordon Talk, feminism, lgbt, sex

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: How To Fix SNL

Posted on January 24, 2013 by | 2 comments

GORDON: …AAAAND LIVE FROM LAS VEGAS, IT’S WEDNESDAY NIGHT! Welcome one and all to this delayed installment of Gordon and Evan Talk. Our subject for tonight: How can we fix SNL.

EVAN: [And Toronto! . . .] Because, well, let’s face it. Saturday Night Live is not as good as it could be.

GORDON: Which is a real shame, considering the talent it produced during it’s early years. Chevy Chase, John Belushi, Dan Akroyd, Andy Kaufman, Steve Martin- I could go on and on until I hit the early 90s.

EVAN: To be fair, I haven’t really watched a lot of the older SNL episodes, and certainly not that far back, but I’ve seen enough glimmers of goodness to know how good the show can be.

And yeah, now that you mention it, SNL used to be a factory that just cranked out the comedy talent. What happened?

GORDON: I really can’t say- I never watched the series religiously enough to be able to point to any specific point or change; I only know that unless you like Adam Sandler (I don’t), by the early 90s the show just wasn’t good anymore- barring the creation of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, for which we give thanks.

EVAN: And that we do. How about this: before we go forward to how it could be better, what do we like about it now? And there’s gotta be at least one thing.

GORDON: Like “What’s Up With That?” or “Celebrity Jeopardy.” The first time was hilarious. The fortieth time, not so much. I also like Steffan, just for the total surrealism, and the commercials can be pretty good. But those are few and far between.

EVAN: I personally love “What’s Up With That,” and it gets funnier each time for me. Kenan’s enthusiasm compounded by Sudeikis’ dancing and grinning gets me every time. I also, and I know there aren’t a lot who agree with me on this, really like Weekend Update.

And I feel like the Minnesota early morning hip-hop show has a lot of potential.

GORDON: I felt these things may have been funny the first time- heck, the first few times- but I really, really can’t stand ’em now. Minnesota early morning hip-hop radio is funny, but there are only so many times you can say the northern edge of the midwest is cold. I feel like they’re going to take it and run it into the ground, like all their other popular skits.

EVAN: So that seems to be a large problem, here. The skits that are funny don’t show up as much as we’d like to, and they continually run the risk of wringing all the life out of them when they are hits.

GORDON: Is that the fault of the writers?

EVAN: Probably a little, yeah.

GORDON: I also feel that it has the same problems The Simpsons do. Each episode becomes more about showcasing which celebrity and “we-want-to-be-Mumford-and-Sons-so-bad-it-hurts” musical guests.

EVAN: I think that to critique the show we have to leave the musical guests out of it. At this point in time they’re actually leaving that choice up to the fans.

GORDON: Fair enough. But the celebrities. Seems to me that when the show started back in the 70s, the “celebrity” guests were really just there to introduce the show and do a bit of stand-up. Everything else was dedicated to the cast performing skits.

EVAN: The hosts, you mean?

GORDON: Exactly. See- even I get confused about their intent.

EVAN: If you don’t mind me directing this conversation once again, how about comparing SNL to another skit-based show: Key & Peele.

GORDON: Go on…

EVAN: Key & Peele, and I think we can both agree on this, is hilarious.

Not only that, but it’s just two guys who, presumably, do quite a bit of their own writing as well.

GORDON: No doubt.

EVAN: So how could SNL learn from Key & Peele?

GORDON: Maintain a semblance of relevance to the modern world.

Key & Peele is satirical, sarcastic. I watch the show and laugh at it when they take shots at stuff that’s relevant- like fighters trash talking each other prior to a fight.

When’s the last time you watched a show that looked even remotely like “What’s Up With That?” How many of us even know what the Laurence Welk show was?

EVAN: See, I’d say that one of the problems with SNL is that they feel compelled to “stay relevant.” So many of their skits are based on the current news, whatever’s hot right now.

Ex. Lance Armstrong doping, that one guy who got scammed by the fake girlfriend, etc.

GORDON: I wouldn’t say those weren’t funny in and of themselves- I just thought they were lousy as a cold open, and got rehashed in the Weekend Update. Kinda proves the whole “If it’s funny we’ll do it until it isn’t and then for a while longer” strategy SNL employs these days.

EVAN: I think what I like about Key & Peele is that they’re okay with breaking away from current events a little more.

GORDON: Well, we could debate which the more current until the cows come home. Our topic was “how do we fix SNL?”

EVAN: Okay, Way to Fix SNL #1: Don’t drive jokes into the ground. If a skit is recurring, do it maybe four or fives times a year, max.

GORDON: #2: Not every celebrity is funny. Stick with ones who are, and keep their appearances down to the monologue and a few key skits.

EVAN: #3: Find a way to replace Andy Samberg’s Digital Shorts. I know that nothing will truly take their place, but they were what revitalized the show after so many years.

GORDON: #4: Instead of dragging in celebrities who are already popular, go back to giving new comedians a chance- become the talent producing machine that you were in the 70s and 80s.

EVAN: Ooh, I like that one a lot. There’s definitely a conflict between hot fresh names drawing in viewers [Joseph Gordon Levitt], and looking for lesser celebrities, maybe from TV instead of movies [Krysten Ritter from Don’t Trust The B—– In Apartment 23].

I’m not super impressed with the new guy they brought on, but I really like two of the newer girls [Kate McKinnon and Cecily Strong].

GORDON: I agree, for the most part. I simply wish they would actually take some people from the pool- nay, ocean- of raw talent the internet has created.

EVAN: THERE YOU GO. You, sir, are a genius.

GORDON: Imagine SNL written by the guys from Dead Kevin, BriTANick, WKUK, and other internet sketch shows. Imagine all the great new actors and comedians we could get.

EVAN: That’s what we really need.

GORDON: That it is.

EVAN: I mean, the fact that Donald Glover made it from Derrick Comedy, a YouTube comedy show, to being a star on Community and other shows says a lot-

GORDON: That it does.

EVAN: And SNL could be that way of getting this talent out there.

GORDON: Absolutely. Would you watch a show like that? I would. I would watch the crap out of that show.

EVAN: I would watch it all the time without stopping.

GORDON: People would die.

EVAN: Yes they would.

Now that you’ve wrapped up this conversation with that masterful suggestion, though, what are we talking about next week?

GORDON: I’d like to talk about guns and gun control.

EVAN: Heh. Heh heh heh. Okay.

My recommendation is . . . um . . . have you watched a lot of Christian movies?

GORDON: I’ve seen a couple. But it’s okay, I’m better now.

EVAN: I kind of want to talk about that. How Christian media is so substandard and it’s the fault of Christians themselves.

Yours is better, though. I am probably going to vote for it.

GORDON: And I like railing on things- I’ll probably vote for yours.

EVAN: Thanks for reading, you guys, and sorry again for how late this is in coming. As always, this has been Evan and Gordon Talk, be sure to vote below for what you’d like us to discuss next.

2 Comments

Posted in Comedy, Evan and Gordon Talk, internet, television, writing

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Evan and Gordon Talk: Django Unchained

Posted on January 9, 2013 by | Leave a comment

GORDON: You know what they call a quarter pounder with cheese in France?

EVAN: What?

GORDON: A poor attempt at distracting our readers from the fact that we ain’t gonna be talking about drugs like we said we would.

EVAN: I have seen very few Tarantino films, and only barely recognize the references.

GORDON: You make me sad.

EVAN: I know.

That aside, what we’re going to be talking about today is Django Unchained, a movie I finished watching less than an hour ago and the subject of this Monday’s post [written by Gordon].

GORDON: So what did you think?

EVAN: Initial thoughts are: Very long. Not what I expected. Apparently in Django’s world everyone is a skinbag filled to bursting with blood.

GORDON: Speaking as someone who’s fired black-powder guns, I can actually kinda see something like that happening.

EVAN: That is ridiculous, but interesting to know.

Now if you don’t have anything in particular you wanted to talk about, did you want to maybe address Spike Lee’s reaction to this film really quick?

GORDON: The Lee-Tarantino feud has been going on for a long time now, so I really wasn’t surprised that Lee reacted the way he did. I naturally wish he had at least seen the movie, but I don’t think it would’ve made a difference in his mind.

EVAN: To give readers a little context, director Spike Lee tweeted:

American Slavery Was Not A Sergio Leone Spaghetti Western. It Was A Holocaust. My Ancestors Are Slaves. Stolen From Africa. I Will Honor Them.

He also straight-up said “I cant speak on it ’cause I’m not gonna see it. All I’m going to say is that it’s disrespectful to my ancestors. That’s just me…I’m not speaking on behalf of anybody else.”

GORDON: I get where he’s coming from, but (1) I don’t think the movie dishonors the slaves and (2) I don’t think that there should be any time period off-limits for telling stories.

EVAN: I definitely agree with both points. Tarantino does not disrespect the plight of slaves during the time period, and there are really no eras of history that we shouldn’t be allowed to explore through various media. How it’s done is what matters.

GORDON: It’s Tarantino; you either love him or you hate him. He does a spastic, scatterbrained style of movie which is two parts tense dialogue and three parts references to obscure exploitation flicks. It is what it is.

EVAN: So did you like it?

GORDON: I did, but not as much as his other movies. And not for the subject matter, simply for the storytelling. I felt it was anticlimatic. Especially compared to his second latest, Inglourious Basterds.

EVAN: Very much agreed. You expect [SPOILER ALERT YOU’VE BEEN WARNED] Monsieur Candy to be killed by Django, or at least in a big way, but instead he’s just shot by Dr. Schultz with his sleeve-Deringer.

GORDON: And there’s still plenty left in the film, we just kinda trudge through it. I simply wasn’t impressed. I mean- I ain’t asking for a John Wu fightscene, but something more than [SERIOUSLY YOU GUYS, SPOILERS] Django shooting unarmed people from the top of the plantation stairs.

But as far as the whole thing goes, relatively amusing and a major stepping stone in addressing the subject of slavery.

EVAN: I mean, sort of going back to where Lee was coming from, it’s not a very realistic depiction by any means, a revenge story of this fashion can’t be. That being said, isn’t it the same sort of concept as Inglourious Basterds? Revenge enacted by the persecuted?

GORDON: That’s exactly what it is. A revenge fantasy. Bad guys being killed by the people who they oppressed. It gives us a feeling of divine judgment upon the wicked. Which is a theme a lot of westerns have.

REVENGE.

EVAN: I have seen at least one, and you are not wrong.

GORDON: I think what Lee needs to get is this:

This was not a movie about slavery, this was a movie about revenge set in the world of slavery. This wasn’t- and shouldn’t be- taken as a commentary of any kind about African-Americans anymore than Kill Bill should be taken as a commentary on women.

You wanna pick a fight with Tarantino, do it over something that’s actually there. (And just so everyone knows, I really like Spike Lee’s work and admire the guy as an individual)

EVAN: So you’re saying that slavery must be viewed as a backdrop, and not the subject matter? I know that you wrote your Monday post on this, but we can go over it just a little.

GORDON: That’s exactly it. It’s not a history film, it’s a Tarantino film. Don’t look for realism there, and don’t look for buoyancy in a nightstand; it’s not what either of them are for.

EVAN: I agree with you to a point, in that the exploration of slavery was in no means Tarantino’s intent. It’s just difficult to look past that as subject matter when it permeates the film [what with it opening up on a slave’s scarred back, etc].

GORDON: That is true, and you can question whether or not it’s right for Tarantino to use the subject matter to shock and horrify people and draw in crowds, but from what I saw and understood of the film the scenes of horror inflicted upon the slaves were, what’s the word for this, “respectful?” enough to indicate that even blood-and-guts Quentin wasn’t unaware of what he was dealing with.

EVAN: I can accept that. Two more thoughts as we wrap up this talk: the soundtrack and Samuel L. Jackson as a real life Uncle Ruckus.

GORDON: The soundtrack sucked. We can all agree on this. Usually he can make it work- this time he didn’t.

EVAN: My cousin and I actually really liked it.

GORDON: Really? I couldn’t disagree more. I felt it lacked cohesion, which the soundtracks in his other works normally have. Heck, more often than not it’s the commonalities in the soundtracks trying the whole thing together.

EVAN: I felt like the more contemporary hip-hop rap tracks were a little bit jarring, but thought the other songs overall were good picks.

GORDON: We’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. Let’s move on.

EVAN: Samuel L. Jackson’s character.

If you don’t know who that is on the right you need to start watching The Boondocks right now. Finish this post first, then immediately go find an episode online or something.

GORDON: I thought he knocked it out of the park. Didn’t have any problem with him whatsoever.

EVAN: 1) Did not know Samuel L. Jackson could play such a convincing old man. 2) Sycophants in films are normally played up for comedic value, and that is no less the case here.

GORDON: Let’s not forget that Jackson was not only an active member of the civil rights movement, but even associated with some of its more radical leaders.

EVAN: That is something that I, and presumably our readers, did not know.

To end this off, did you have a favourite moment in the film? [I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO WARN ABOUT SPOILERS, BUT I AM ANYWAY]

GORDON: For me, it would have to be the scene where Christoph Waltz (who really stole the show) was explaining bounty-hunting the Django in the bar. The dude is awesome to watch.

EVAN: Christoph Waltz’s accent was amazing. I could listen to him talk all day.

My personal favourite was the posse getting ready to go kill Django and Schultz and arguing about the masks. The dialogue was hilarious, and Jonah Hill was a nice surprise, too.

GORDON: That was awesome. And speaking of awesome stuff, our discussion topic for next week:

EVAN: Ah man, I kind of just want to talk about movies. Could we somehow generally address the trend towards big budget sci-fi flicks that’s coming about in Hollywood?

GORDON: No. No more movies. We do ’em too much already.

EVAN: Fine, fine. Suggestions?

GORDON: College: what should its purpose be? Careers or Well-Rounded Individuals?

EVAN: Or just in general, I’m not sure it has to go one of two ways. But that’s a good one. I’m on board.

Thanks everyone for reading, and for continuing to unwittingly stumble upon our blog in 2013! Evan and Gordon out.

Leave a comment

Posted in Evan and Gordon Talk, film, music, race, review

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,