Today I had a completely fantastic day at work. My rotation was amazing, we were busy, and the day went by at lightening speed. Then I got to come home and I have a bunch of Hulu to watch, some dinner to make, and then I'm going to go to sleep. I'm all in hall having a fantastic day, which makes finding a rant for today a bit of a challenge, but you know I like challenges.
Since it's something I'm very interesting in, let's talk about TV shows. The end of season sweeps have started, the time when networks decide what shows to cancel and what shows to renew. Naturally quite a few shows that I enjoy have gotten the can, and some that I thought were totally stupid and worthless are gonna be back next year. However, it's not the loss of shows that I want to rant about. I want to talk about how those decisions are made, specifically the gathering of views and ratings.
I do not have cable, I do not have satellite, I do not have an antennae, I do not watch TV on a TV. I know that a lot of other people in my generation are in the same boat. We eat, sleep, and breathe the internet. That's where we get our news, where we talk to our friends, where we do our work, and where we watch TV. It allows us to watch shows on our schedule, which is a wonderful thing. We get to pause the show, watch earlier episodes to catch up, and for just a few dollars we can get shows as soon as a day after they air. All in all it seems like an amazing service, until you realize that you actually don't count.
Despite the prevalence of online services like Hulu and Netflix the industries and networks still use the same methods that they always have to gather ratings and decide which shows to keep and which to cancel. This basically means that when I (and thousands of others like me) watch a TV show I like, it doesn't matter at all. Even though I tune in to Hulu every single week to watch a show, I might as well not watch it at all. It drives me crazy that with technology going the way it is, they can't seem to update the way they do ratings for TV shows. Just because I have the type of life that doesn't allow me to sit in front of my actual TV at a certain time on a certain night doesn't mean I don't like a show.
I think part of the reason that they don't take this into account, is because I have the freedom to watch whenever I want. The so called "prime" spot on TV doesn't matter if I can just watch it a different day. Going up against a wildly popular show doesn't matter either, because I have to time and opportunity to watch them both online if I choose. I wonder if the networks feel cheated of the time and work they put into organizing shows and setting up schedules. Or if they feel like we are somehow cheating the system. Whatever the reason, I just don't believe it's practical for them to continue to ignore online viewership. Good shows, that people enjoy, get cancelled because they cater to a younger audience that views them almost exclusively online.
What baffles me is that online viewing creates a whole new demographic that networks can tap into. AND it allows them to run shows with smaller budgets and do things like web series. There is a lot more freedom online, and the possibilities are truly endless. If they would just tap into what some of the YouTubers are doing they'd realize that the small budgets and dedication can bring amazing results. It's not about budget it's about advertising and availability. I can watch a YouTube video as many times as I want, whenever I want, and each time the ads run and the creator gains revenue. Why don't the TV networks see the benefit of this?
I suppose that's enough waxing poetic about the downsides of living most of my existence online. Honestly though, the good overshadows the bad. And speaking of the good, it's about time for me to go and eat some delicious dinner. I'll be back tomorrow with a piece of flash fiction, or at least something that vaguely resembles flash fiction.
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Saturday, May 5, 2012
May 5th
Today I didn't get out of bed until almost noon, largely due to the fact that I didn't get back from work until well after 2am. However, I did manage to do something with my day, and that experience lead me nicely to the subject for this week's Saturday Rant. I went shopping for a bridesmaid dress. I went to a handful of stores each with a large selection of dresses by different designers, and tried on about two dozen dresses, all in the space of 4 hours. In case you're not a female and haven't guessed already, this rant is about dress sizes.
I do not understand why women's clothes (and this goes for more than just dresses) come in arbitrarily numbered sizes that seem to have no relation to actual dress measurements. I went to stores today where a size 14 fit me easily and then picked up another designer whose size 18 was a little too snug. Then there were the plus stores where the numbers were 1 and 2 and 3, because they feel the need to make plus size women feel better about themselves. And don't even get me started on the stores where Meg, who is easily half my size, had to wear a size 10 or 12. Stores like that make me want to cry, because Meg is skinny, so a size 0 in those stores must be almost a nonexistent person.
Frankly, I could care less what my dress size is. I'll happily wear a size 42 (cause it's the answer to life the universe and everything), as long as I knew that no matter what store I went to, what designer I tried on, I'd just have to reach for that reliable number 42. I understand that different styles might fit just a little differently, but ALL dresses should have the same basic measurements; bust, hips, and waist. If the dress size was based on those measurements than all dresses of the same size would actually be the same size. I should never have to run to the plus size section of one store and easily slip on a size 14 in a different store.
I know that a lot of women have this same issue when trying on clothes, so I don't understand why women's clothing designers haven't done something about it. Men's clothes basically track from brand to brand and store to store, because their sizes are actual measurements. Men's pants come in waist by length, which doesn't change with a style or store or designer. That means that not only can guys know exactly what pants to try on without a guessing game, but they can easily order online because the measurements are right there for them. The same goes for men's shirts. Certainly they come in the basic small, medium, large, which is an arbitrary measure of size, but they stay basically consistent across brands and stores. Women's shirts (if they don't come in the numbered sizes) still very greatly store to store. Then of course there is the fact that a men's medium and a women's XXL can end up being exactly the same size of shirts. That is NOT alright.
Supposedly a lot of this size labeling has been done to help combat negative body image in larger women, but let me tell you something, I am not fooled. I may pick up a size 2 dress in the plus section, but I know damn well that I am still MUCH larger that the girl getting a size 2 in the women's section or the one getting a size 2 in the juniors section. There is no fooling a women into thinking she's that skinny. You want women to have a healthy relationship with their bodies? Make clothes that actually give women a realistic measure of their size. My weight loss goals should be about my actual measurements not some dress or pant size that I might actually never achieve if the clothes run really small, or I might already fit at a "moral boosting" plus size store. If I know my actual measurements, and I know that all clothes of the same size are actually the same size, then I have something to work for. Plus, there isn't the serious moral crusher of going to a store where not even the XXXL clothes have even the slightest chance of fitting you.
Those are just my opinions, but it's something I've been thinking about quite a lot. So remember, it's not the size that's labeled on your clothes, it's the size of your actual body. Until tomorrow.
I do not understand why women's clothes (and this goes for more than just dresses) come in arbitrarily numbered sizes that seem to have no relation to actual dress measurements. I went to stores today where a size 14 fit me easily and then picked up another designer whose size 18 was a little too snug. Then there were the plus stores where the numbers were 1 and 2 and 3, because they feel the need to make plus size women feel better about themselves. And don't even get me started on the stores where Meg, who is easily half my size, had to wear a size 10 or 12. Stores like that make me want to cry, because Meg is skinny, so a size 0 in those stores must be almost a nonexistent person.
Frankly, I could care less what my dress size is. I'll happily wear a size 42 (cause it's the answer to life the universe and everything), as long as I knew that no matter what store I went to, what designer I tried on, I'd just have to reach for that reliable number 42. I understand that different styles might fit just a little differently, but ALL dresses should have the same basic measurements; bust, hips, and waist. If the dress size was based on those measurements than all dresses of the same size would actually be the same size. I should never have to run to the plus size section of one store and easily slip on a size 14 in a different store.
I know that a lot of women have this same issue when trying on clothes, so I don't understand why women's clothing designers haven't done something about it. Men's clothes basically track from brand to brand and store to store, because their sizes are actual measurements. Men's pants come in waist by length, which doesn't change with a style or store or designer. That means that not only can guys know exactly what pants to try on without a guessing game, but they can easily order online because the measurements are right there for them. The same goes for men's shirts. Certainly they come in the basic small, medium, large, which is an arbitrary measure of size, but they stay basically consistent across brands and stores. Women's shirts (if they don't come in the numbered sizes) still very greatly store to store. Then of course there is the fact that a men's medium and a women's XXL can end up being exactly the same size of shirts. That is NOT alright.
Supposedly a lot of this size labeling has been done to help combat negative body image in larger women, but let me tell you something, I am not fooled. I may pick up a size 2 dress in the plus section, but I know damn well that I am still MUCH larger that the girl getting a size 2 in the women's section or the one getting a size 2 in the juniors section. There is no fooling a women into thinking she's that skinny. You want women to have a healthy relationship with their bodies? Make clothes that actually give women a realistic measure of their size. My weight loss goals should be about my actual measurements not some dress or pant size that I might actually never achieve if the clothes run really small, or I might already fit at a "moral boosting" plus size store. If I know my actual measurements, and I know that all clothes of the same size are actually the same size, then I have something to work for. Plus, there isn't the serious moral crusher of going to a store where not even the XXXL clothes have even the slightest chance of fitting you.
Those are just my opinions, but it's something I've been thinking about quite a lot. So remember, it's not the size that's labeled on your clothes, it's the size of your actual body. Until tomorrow.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Short Rant
This is not a normal July Adventure blog this is a necessary explosion. I just finished reading this article and I couldn't keep myself quiet.
I know from experience that it would be useless to try to comment on the article itself. This website is a seriously conservative site and as such are probably very set in their ways. Still articles like this make me incredibly angry. I'm a Harry Potter fan, and I know the books aren't real. Still I think that lessons can be learned from them. The article claims it's terrible to base our life around a book, but the Bible is a book. More importantly the parables are made up stories that we are supposed to base our lives around. The conservatives have no problem using those stories to dictate how they should live their lives, but shame on us for doing the same because our made up story wasn't made up by Jesus. *Screams in frustration*
Sometimes I just want to shake these people. I may not agree with everything Andrew Slack says but I do recognize the good he is doing. Are you, Warner, telling me that it is bad to try and stop genocide, no matter what your inspiration? That simply because I draw comparisons to fiction I shouldn't worry about racism? That I live in a fantasy world because I want to create social change? Don't even get me started on the gay issue. Rowling admitted Dumbledore was gay because she was asked she wasn't trying to get in with the community, or sell more books, she doesn't need to do either of those things. I could care less what you actually think about the gay issue, but you need to do your research and not jump to conclusions. Obviously this revelation made her extremely unpopular with you, so what makes you think she chose to do that arbitrarily. I need to go relax with a book.
Until I next fail at failure.
I know from experience that it would be useless to try to comment on the article itself. This website is a seriously conservative site and as such are probably very set in their ways. Still articles like this make me incredibly angry. I'm a Harry Potter fan, and I know the books aren't real. Still I think that lessons can be learned from them. The article claims it's terrible to base our life around a book, but the Bible is a book. More importantly the parables are made up stories that we are supposed to base our lives around. The conservatives have no problem using those stories to dictate how they should live their lives, but shame on us for doing the same because our made up story wasn't made up by Jesus. *Screams in frustration*
Sometimes I just want to shake these people. I may not agree with everything Andrew Slack says but I do recognize the good he is doing. Are you, Warner, telling me that it is bad to try and stop genocide, no matter what your inspiration? That simply because I draw comparisons to fiction I shouldn't worry about racism? That I live in a fantasy world because I want to create social change? Don't even get me started on the gay issue. Rowling admitted Dumbledore was gay because she was asked she wasn't trying to get in with the community, or sell more books, she doesn't need to do either of those things. I could care less what you actually think about the gay issue, but you need to do your research and not jump to conclusions. Obviously this revelation made her extremely unpopular with you, so what makes you think she chose to do that arbitrarily. I need to go relax with a book.
Until I next fail at failure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)