The blog of Scott King

Monday, February 21, 2005

I'm lovin' it?

I am starting to love my late-night trips to McDonalds. This is quite ironic because I absolutely abhor McDonalds and everything it stands for: grossly inhumane treatment of animals and livestock, the homogenization of indigenous cultures around the globe, the lowering of standards of food quality, and the general generic atmosphere that this evil corporation has inspired. There’s a reason sociologists refer to “The McDonaldsization of America” so often.

That being said, when the sun goes down and I start to come alive, I am drawn to this brightly lit palace of convenience, almost weekly. I have perfectly good hamburgers and buns at home that could be thawed, grilled, and prepared in less time than it would take to drive to the Alcoa McD’s and back. Still, I cannot resist the call of the communal feeding trough.

I think it’s a manifestation of the hunter-gatherer instinct. Cooking is for the women-folk (by “women” I’m speaking of gender, not sex). I’d rather go out and hunt down the wild game and its flamboyant packaging. Even if this means exchanging the money I made by serving people food at another restaurant, it still makes me feel like I’ve earned my keep, my place at the fire. Bringing people food and drink so that they’ll give me money so that I can pay other people to bring me food and drink makes me feel a part of the circle of life in our service-industry American society.

So, late at night, my stomach guides me to the temples of wisdom, and I am grateful. Still, McDonalds sucks, and you shouldn’t eat there.

6 Comments:

Blogger Anon said...

Ah yes, do as I say, not as I do.

February 21, 2005 9:09 PM

 
Blogger Anon said...

I remain curious about your comment about women - "by 'women' I’m speaking of gender, not sex"

Can you help me understand what you mean by that?

February 24, 2005 8:29 PM

 
Blogger Anon said...

P.S. I'm curious about your thought - no challenge or pissiness implied.

February 24, 2005 8:31 PM

 
Blogger ascottisascott said...

Anon,

By "women," I mean the archetype of woman, which I don't think I fit in this particular aspect of my being. It all goes back to the nurturer as opposed to the hunter, the provider. Of course these two types can be united, but when it comes to material goods and nutrition, I'm definitely the lion, not the zebra.

In other ways I'm definitely a nurturer. Romantically, for instance. I hate competition and displays of prowess in this field. I'd rather cuddle and lick someone's wounds.

I hope that makes sense.

P.S.: I'll respond to more of your comments soon.

February 28, 2005 8:46 PM

 
Blogger dylan k. said...

I'm willing to go even further out on that pirate-plank and argue that your archetypes themselves, whether you apply them to gender, or sex, they're faulty!

Ok I'll let you talk me down from faulty to irrelevant?

February 28, 2005 9:57 PM

 
Blogger ascottisascott said...

How can an archetype be faulty? They are only collective abstractions, after all.

So, yes, I can see them being irrevlant as far as they only have as much power as there is belief in/perpetuation of them. That's why I make the distinction between gender and sex when it comes to masculine and feminine, man and woman. The feminine exists as a concept irrespective of sex. In a perfect world the feminine would be honored as an equal counterpart to the masculine. This value would be based upon femininity's intrinsic value as a part of the spectrum of personality and character, not merely as an expedient (e.g., the role of mother/mistress/wife/whore).

March 2, 2005 3:37 PM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home