Irony. Can't live with it, can't live without it. You know what I could have lived without though? SUCKER PUNCH. Felt it in my gut--the irony--as soon as I left the theatre. $11.50 forever gone, flushed down Zack Snyder's psychological toilet. That doesn't just leave a bad smell in my nostrils, it truly, utterly and completely STINKS.

Supposedly about female empowerment, and given Snyder's dedication of the film to his mother--who passed away in 2010--I do believe he genuinely felt he was making a brilliant masterpiece in homage of a woman whose own brillance and female empowerment undoubtedly gave Snyder the courage to pursue his art. And his work as a writer and director of the now infamous 300 was spectacular. However, Snyder's lucky 300 came across his path before Sucker Punch. If the order had been reversed, he'd be back to filming Gatorade commercials....

The next Man of Steel takes the audience on a clear journey through the super-ego, ego and id before Snyder proceeds to do his own Freudian account of the five stages of female psycho-sexual development. Aussie Emily Browning is the "Babydoll" of a protagonist who must suffer through it all. Along with the audience.

Babydoll's mother is presumably killed by her abusive step-father for money. The step-father attempts to rape Brownings' character, but when she puts up a fight--goes after her younger sister. Browning's Babydoll skoots out of her window, shimmying down a drain pipe to re-enter the house after Step-daddy locks her in her room. Meanwhile, dear ol' dad has already had his fun.

NOW, what happens next is due to bad writing: It appears that Babydoll, in a failed attempt to protect her sister, actually kills her. That's where Snyder took his psychological metaphor too far. What does that represent? The Oedipal. In literary terms, the Oedipal complex is about moving right toward that thing you are trying hardest to avoid.

Would you like your barf bag now, or later?

Had Snyder set out to make a real film about female empowerment, at this same juncture, he might have made it only appear as though Babydoll shot her sister when in fact, Step-daddy was the real killer. It would have been even better if Babydoll escaped the brutality of the mental institution she is committed to after her "crime" and gets to pick up the gun she dropped earlier--finishing what she almost started.

But that's not what happens. To find out, you'll have to go spend your own $11.50. Let me just put it to you this way, if you're truly looking for a film where girls kick-ass (not just attempt to audition for the reboot of the next Lara Croft flick *cough, cough*...Vanessa Hudgeons...*cough*), than this isn't the film for you...or me, it turns out.

All the audience really gets is a hardy helping of what may not be entirely clear to Snyder as his own bruised ego. The storyline is practically criminal. Three female lives, and apparently three more, are worth one...one life we never even get introduced to? Why would you think, Zack Snyder, that would be even a remotely satisfying ending? And killing a baby and its mother--I suppose that's your attempted contribution to a revised Campbellian set of trials for the female hero...?

You just don't get it , do you? Being a mother, being nurturing--that's what makes women strong, resourceful leaders. We don't need to destroy man's past or future--women ARE the full continuum. And in your attempt to rewrite the female hero, all you really did was push us back down a few decades. Elektra was better. Elektra, Zack....

Before I EVER donate my money to the cruel and unusual punishment of another Cruel and Unusual Film, I would rather be locked in a dark room for fifteen hours, forced to watch the sickeningly sweet ensemble-cast of Valentine's Day play out the equally sickening storyline over and over and over again. 

If you read this, Zack, Deborah...anyone from Cruel and Unusual--I want my money back.

On the Housel-scale, SUCKER PUNCH earns an unsatisfying, extremely disappointed 3/10--and a good portion of that "3" is because of the excellent cinematography of Larry Fong.

Too bad Fong couldn't use his mind-tricks to bend this spoon of a film into something more entertaining....

The job search. It's often a daunting process. And in 2011, given that dollar-futures closed at about 76-cents on Friday, March 25th, all levels of business will be scrutinizing new hires much more closely. So what does this mean to you?

Even if employed, it's never a bad idea to stay abreast of hiring trends. If you're unemployed or looking to transition, it's even more important to better understand the process.
 
I've read different opinions on providing professional references with your resume; some experts say not to bother while others say go for it. Even if a posting doesn't require professional references--always provide at least three (on a separate page labeled "Professional References"). Why? Because it's like you saying to your future employer, "I'm fully prepared and fully confident." If you're looking for a managerial position, include the names of at least five people. Who do you choose? If providing three, try to have several people who have supervised you and one colleague. For five, include 2-3 previous supervisors, 2-3 colleagues and at least one subordinate (if applicable). If you recently graduated from college and are looking for your first job, it's acceptable (and expected) that you include a few college professors--but once you've been working for 5-10 years, avoid listing college professors--unless you earned a graduate or post-graduate degree during those 5-10 working years.

It's important to list people you KNOW will speak highly of you. If you find you don't know three people who can do that, you're going to have to work harder at networking...a lot harder.
 
Let your professional references know you are applying to new positions. Why? Because when they're called, and they will be, it's important that your references are prepared to say GOOD things. When you contact your references about a recent application, it gives you the opportunity to explain what you're applying for, highlighting the qualities you feel make you a good fit. If you're applying to lots of different jobs over an extended period of time, send each of your Professional References an annual update along with an updated curriculum vitae or resume--making sure to THANK THEM for their efforts.

If you're applying to jobs that request letters of recommendation, be sure the letters are dated the same year in which you are applying to the position. Always give your recommenders 60-90 days to write and mail your letter; provide a self-addressed (appropriately!) stamped envelope as a courtesy. When you send your recommenders the SASE, be sure to include a brief note of appreciation and include an updated resume. You may also want to provide a summary for the benefit of your recommenders, highlighting the education, experience and expertise most valuable to your job search--things they will undoubtedly touch on if such a summary is provided. Also, it's appropriate to check in with the recommender after 30-45 days from when they would have received the materials; life does get in the way sometimes, despite best intentions. And it's your future--only you can be responsible for it.

Cover letters can be tricky--keep it brief, sticking to how your education and experience fit within the qualifications listed for the job. Be as specific as possible, avoiding overuse of pronouns like "I," "me" and "my." And be sure there are no grammatical errors on either your cover letter or resume. Employers are looking for reasons not to interview you--and you can't take that personally. It's just common sense in 2011. When unemployment is as high as it is, you can be assured that at almost every level of employment, there is going to be a saturation of willing and eager applicants. Standing out from the crowd may be as easy as using appropriate grammar. If you don't have a Doctorate in English--no worries, send your letter off to three friends/relatives you trust, asking each to proof-read your letter for you. Give people at least one week to look it over properly--no rush jobs! You won't give or get quality by rushing--may not even be worth mailing out your application if you can't get organized enough to prepare materials well ahead of any deadline.

In terms of your resume, be aware of disciplinary expectations; if you're an engineer, your resume will look vastly different than say, a professor's curriculum vitae. Always put your name and contact information at the top of the page. Always list your education first, beginning with your most recent degree--include the degree, university and year you graduated. If you've been working for more than 10 years, you can leave off your GPA. If you're a recent grad or looking to work in education, include the GPA ONLY if it's substantially higher than a 3.0. Understand, though you may have worked hard for that 3.0, there will be more people with higher GPA's applying for the same position. And you don't want to provide prospective employers with reasons to throw your resume in the slush pile. My personal advice is to only include a GPA if it's a 3.5 or higher. A 3.5 shows you're a hard worker but well-rounded. A 4.0 may give the impression that you're either too-smart and or too-introverted to be a "good fit" for the company--it may also look forced or unrealistic. Highlight your GPA if it ranges from a 3.5-3.9 (out of 4.0). It may be sufficient to simply list "cum laude," "magna cum laude," or "summa cum laude"--that way, no one is daunted, threatened or otherwise turned off by the specifics of your grade point average...people don't always know exactly how to translate Latin Honors so it's fairly innocuous.

After listing your education, create a section with your experience--listing your job title, company, and years you worked there--beginning with your most recent work experience. In a separate section, you can list your specific skills. It's often good to also include a brief section on your community service...what community service? Yours! That's right, 2011-ers, to get a job today it's a good idea to show that you care about your community. It's a positive on any resume--regardless of discipline. Stick with things you did in the last year, going back no further than five. 

Once you master the application process, so begins the interviews! When you get to this stage, it's really, really REALLY important to be prepared...for anything. Find out as much as possible about the people and spaces involved--knowing the room lay-out ahead of time may make you feel more relaxed once there. If you can find out the people you'll be interviewing with, you can do quick internet searches to get some insights on who they are and their contributions to the particular company--and through that--what types of questions they may ask you during your interview. Like with any public presentation--whether you're speaking in front of 1 or more strangers--you need to practice, practice, PRACTICE! Try to anticipate possible questions based on the job qualifications and both think and speak your answers so when you are asked a similiar question at crunch time, it flows more easily; be sure to take notes on issues you may not be as familiar with but feel will be discussed in the interview. Put the notes on a pad of paper you'll bring with you to the interview. This will allow you to discreetly view information you may need to make the interview a success while also showing your interviewer(s) that you are fully engaged in the total process.

Look out for the UNEXPECTED question. There's always one--something that throws you off or makes you uncomfortable. Remember, at EVERY level, employers are looking to weed you out--simply because they have to find some differentiation between candidates. Never take it personally. Speaking of which, you should be aware that in 2011, many companies will be receiving an estimated 100-300+ applications for a SINGLE job opening. They have their pick of whoever they want from that pool. You will never be the only candidate for a given job. Most companies can have up to 20 potential candidates; but what's more likely, if you've made it to the (in-person) interview stage, is that your competition boils down to 2-3 others. While that may sound like favorable odds, think again:
 
If, by the end of the interview, no one mentions when to expect the next call or a specific time frame, it makes the potential for non-hire more of a possibility. Try to evaluate what may have went wrong--also looking at what you did particularly well--and give it about two weeks before checking in with human resources. Regardless of how you feel the interview may have went, send a brief thank you. If you were interviewed by up to two individuals, write those people thank you notes or send a brief appreciative email. Maybe you were interviewed by a committee--usually anywhere from 5-10 people--you can send brief emails to thank them for the opportunity. If something did go wrong, like the unexpected question, a well-written thank-you may prompt your interviewer(s) to revisit your materials--the caveat is, it's likely to happen regardless of how well you feel your interview went and can work against you. So proceed with caution when it comes to post-interview contact. Sometimes, interviewers will give you their card. That's an invitation to communicate post-interview. If you didn't get that kind of social cue, you may want to further evaluate post-interview comunication. It's a risk--and most of the time, it pays off. However it can sometimes backfire--making you look pushy or aggressive--and that's not the impression you want your interviewer(s) to even remotely believe.

Key words and phrases to include in your materials--even suggest for your recommendation letters--include "supportive," "collegial," "integrity," "dedicated professional," "innovative (or) innovator," "team-oriented leader," "resourceful," and the always popular "talented multi-tasker." Using specific words are really important. If someone refers to you as a "hard-worker," it can be misconstrued that perhaps you're not the brightest penny and so compensate through diligence. Using words like "persevere" and "tenacious" can also have the ring of desperation. While words like "generous" may seem positive, it can also connote collusion--because the word "generous" is so often used in sarcasm, it may not be the best descriptive.

Ultimately, during any job search for any reason, be confident, act comfortable, at-ease, relaxed, and be appropriately friendly. Know your tells and avoid them. Fidgeting is totally off-limits. How do I know all this? Your Pop Culture Professor has been around the block a time or three...I actually winked at an interviewer once--it wasn't meant to be flirtatious and was part of my normal facial expression-pattern when using a particular phrase, but it was still totally out of place. Just remember that you can only do your best in any interview situation; you will make a mistake--at least one--and you need to forgive yourself, learn from it, and move forward.Not every interview-blooper means you're out of the running. Some are more forgivable than others, but every interviewer gets that you're under pressure--no one is expecting robotic-perfection. I would normally advise something like "Be yourself," here but honestly, though you want to look natural during an interview--it may not always appear quite so natural when "being yourself" includes some less becoming behaviors. Put your best foot forward--the better prepared you are, the more at ease. It's okay to have anxiety. Get lots of sleep a few nights before and eat well. Stay hydrated. The day of the interview, allot time to exercise about an hour BEFORE you get ready. Pumping more oxygen to your brain is never a bad thing and the endorphin-release will make you feel more confident. Be sure you wear a clean, pressed suit in a muted-tone of gray, olive, or brown--if you wear a very dark charcoal, navy or black, hair flakes will show more easily on your shoulders. Keep jewelry to a minimum. Wear sensible shoes. Manicure your hands--you use them more than you think. If you're a nail biter, you may want to find a way to break that habit. It's a tell that you're an anxious person and that's not something you want to portray when looking for a new or better job.

Good luck with your future employment! And look for more 21st Century Etiquette Series essays in the coming weeks....

The latest Nickelodeon animated feature film starred the voice of mega-talent, Johnny Depp...but even that wasn't enough to save this cliched, if not terrifically animated, film. Gore Verbinski directed; you know Gore from previous works like The Ring and of course, his Depp-connection, Pirates of the Caribbean.

Where to begin? Well, the film is supposed to be a kind of western...with a message. I got the impression that the film wasn't made for the general audience outside of simply taking your hard-earned dollars; instead, the film was made by Hollywood heavy-hitters FOR Hollywood heavy-hitters. Hey, someone's gotta pay for the beach house in Malibu...that someone is YOU.

The voice-acting and animation are both flawless. Unfortunately, billed as a "family" film, Rango, is simply not for children.
 
The movie shows how a Hollywood-chameleon (an obvious allusion to actors) finds himself in the middle of an existential crisis...in the desert. Moses! Do you see the burning bush???  Sorry, wrong movie.

Like God handing down the ten commandments to a group of unworthy Israelites at the base of Mount Sinai, the villagers of the desert town--who make the angst-ridden chameleon their sheriff (a lot like Clint Eastwood's stint as Mayor of the California-charmer, Carmel...and yes, Eastwood's character from The Good, the Bad and the Ugly does make a cameo appearance, as voiced by Justified's Timothy Olyphant)--worship a false god in the figure of an aged, wheel-chair bound turtle.

The movie's message is an ironic one: Too much commercialism is spoiling nature. However, that message seemed to fall flat when it came to translating the film into hearty videogame sales. In case you aren't sure--the production of videogames IS NOT environmentally-friendly. And in that context, neither is the film.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with the Tribune's Michael Phillips about the film being "soulless," but there is definitely something missing from this movie...and I think that something was the audience.

Also, villifying a turtle is karmically and cosmically incorrect. We could blame the writers, one of whom was Verbinski, but the screenplay itself was written by John Logan--who is currently penning the next Bond film for 2012, Bond 23. Logan's original successes were for his work as a playright. Other films to Logan's credit include Star Trek: Nemesis, the lowest grossing film in the history of the Star Trek franchise....

On the Housel-scale, Rango, despite amazing animation and terrific voice-performances by a plethora of truly awesome actors, receives a 6/10.

Sorry, Johnny....

I didn't want to see it. The movie. But I did anyway. Hey, I am, after all, THE Pop Culture Professor--I've got to maintain my reputation.

In Catherine Hardwicke's directorial take on the original fairy tale, surprisingly produced by Inception's Leonardo DiCaprio, the audience sees the tale of mountain village-life unfold in the small town of Daggerhorn...wait. What was that word again? Daggerhorn...sounds like Dammerung, doesn't it? Exactly. Dammerung is the German word for...you guessed it: Twilight. Catherine Hardwicke directed, Twilight, the 2008 film about a girl caught in a supernatural heterosexual matrix...or, for those of you who don't read, a love triangle involving a vampire and a werewolf.
Shocker--Red Riding Hood is about the same thing--minus the vampire, that is. But that's not all...the "Bella" character in Red Riding Hood, played by Amanda Seyfried, shares the same actor-father as Bella, Billy Burke.

Daggerhorn's similarity to the word Dammerung is also a connection to Neitzsche's Twilight of the Idols or Gotzen-Dammerung. Part of Neitzsche's explorations in his book discussed how the "true world" became fiction. Seeing any connections? The idea behind both Twilight and Red Riding Hood is an attempt to translate what is normally thought of as fiction into the "true world," our reality. And largely, the body of vampire, werewolf, and other supernatural fiction on both page and screen have done just that. But frankly, this little philosophical side-note gives too much cohesion (and credit) to writer, David Leslie Johnson.

David Leslie Johnson wrote the screenplay for Red Riding Hood; his other accomplishment includes Orphan...one which of the producers was Leonardo DiCaprio...the plot thickens. Actually, it doesn't. And that's part of the problem.

There are a great many attempts at foreshadow, at allusion, at a cohesive storyline creating a sense of magical realism--sadly, all of these attempts simply miss the mark. David Leslie Johnson should have hired The Pop Culture Professor as his script-doctor. Well, there's no turning back now.

The visual story also attempts to bring together loose threads in what was meant to be a rich tapestry of allusion, including naming one of the characters Peter--as in Peter and the Wolf. Ugh. Early cinematography is a dizzying display of mountainous pines and valleys. If you're prone to seizures, avert your eyes. Later cinematography puts too much obvious emphasis on the eyes of the various characters in an attempt to confuse the audience as to the human identity of the wolf. And who was responsible for all of that? Aussie Mandy Walker, who's filmed commercials for the likes of Nike and worked with Baz Luhrman on his epic, Australia.

Nice girl--very talented--but that doesn't change the often jarring cinematography, which only served to highlight the overall lack of cohesion in the storyline. And yes, Hardwicke is equally responsible for the problems in the film.

I shant speak too much of the acting; this type of film is a kind of slush-pile pick-up filling in between post-Oscar season and pre-summer blockbusters. The actors don't need to put on much of a show...just show up. Gary Oldman is a favorite of mine; in his particular style, he did try to work with the material provided to show a very flawed character who, naturally, was put in a position of great power and subsequently, abuses it: Like roasting a challenged boy alive in the belly of an elephant-shaped oven. Disturbing...but the wrong kind of disturbing for this particular movie. Again, that was a script-issue that really needed to be edited prior to filming.

On the Housel-scale, Red Riding Hood receives a generous 6/10. Generous because the film is probably closer to hitting only 30% of the marks it tried to target, but at least the theme was supernatural. And in a sea of otherwise uninteresting film options, the supernatural still sells.

I'm just going to say it: Postmodern debate on the nature of truth is a bit of a farce. Yes, every individual's positionality effects the way they perceive events...but the event itself is still a fact.

Example: A boy falls from a tree and breaks his leg. That's a fact; it can't be altered. It really happened. But the way the boy may perceive it is that he was pushed if in the tree with a friend. Or that the friend didn't do enough to save him from the fall. Perhaps the friend of the boy may have felt the boy was being careless, causing the fall. Perhaps the boy's mother felt both boys were being reckless by climbing the tree in the first place. The boy's father, on the other hand, may feel the boy's injury is a source of pride--part of a masculine rite of passage. Four people--all of whom apply separate contexts to the facts--but the FACT still remains that the boy's leg is broken.

Facts cannot be changed by one's perspective. But history is often rewritten anyway. Why? Because people allow their own prejudices to overwhelm them. Because...well, people are weak. It's much easier to change the facts of an event to suit one's own ideals than to face the reality of the event itself. I believe another popular term for this is: JUSTIFICATION. Or "bull shit," depending on your perspective.

This lack of honesty made its way into social attitudes in the mid-20th century shortly after WWII. WWII was based on Modernist perspective: There is absolutely only one truth. And we can only get to that singularity through empirical means.

I don't think I need to explain how Hitler abused this particular social theory...but just in case, "THE Final Solution" ring any bells? And it scared the world. It scared the scholars who put Modernism on the proverbial social map. In essence, those people were partially responsible for the largest genocide in human history. Hence, the birth of POST-Modernism.

How convenient.

Equally convenient is how POST-Modernism allows for a blurring between reality and perspective. Why do you suppose that is? It's written right into the theory itself. You see, Hitler didn't just come to power on his own. No, no. The Vatican helped put him there (the Reichskonkordat is a FACT; it was the final concordat of four that Archbishop Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII, signed with countries like Bavaria, Austria and Germany as early as 1925 through 1933). European politicians helped put Hitler in power; Hitler initially received full support from countries like England, who would stamp giant "J's" in the passports of Jews fleeing Germany into countries that were part of British territory. Even America cheered on the Nazi-nightmare at first. Heck, we even showed up to the Olympics!

It wasn't as though Hitler and his crazy-cult murdered everyone in a few months--or even a few years--before the World knew what was happening. For TWELVE years, Hitler murdered Jews; when he began to run dry there, he started in on the others--Gypsies, people of African heritage, people who were homosexual, the infirmed, the disabled, the elderly...TWELVE years of systematic extinction of other human beings while the World watched. What changed? Hitler began to set his sights on the very people who helped him--excuse me, "appeased" him--early on.

Ah.

THAT is why POST-Modernism exists. It created gray areas--it had to. The World may not have pushed the Jews into the ovens, but their silence was just as participatory...if not more so. And remarkably, there are still fools in 2011 who buy in to the spin...because that's what the theory of everything--POST-Modernism--really is. All-inclusive, like Sandals, but without the tan.

Today, this social-sickness has made its way into everyday life everywhere. My favorite example was a frequent topic my former philosophy professor loved to debate: Life-boat Ethics. Why help other people, when we need to help ourselves?!?! Because, if you ignore a blatant problem--like cancer--the cancer won't just grow, it will spread. That's how Pearl Harbor happened.... 

But it doesn't matter. Because the weak will always choose to remember events at their own convenience, regardless of FACT. 

I was 21 when I married; my mother remembers me being 25. Regardless of her perception, the FACT is that I was 21. Simply take my birth year and subtract it from the year I got married and you get 21. My birth year is a fact, listed on my birth certificate; the year I got married is a fact, listed on my marriage license. Yet somehow, there is a persistent belief that I was four years older. It's simple mathematics, backed up by several pieces of government documentation--there's really no refuting it. But the FACTS don't matter.

My point here is that even something as simple and imminently provable as one's age can be perverted by another's perception. And I find that frightening. 

Don't you? 

 

I took the wrong pill. And now, reality is equivalent to a Matrix-like nightmare in shades of foggy gray. Our country is spending trillions, bailing out corporations, and attempting to reinvigorate a failing economy by helping those of us who have been without jobs for far too long through what equals three (theoretical) years of unemployment benefits. America is a great country; of that, there is no question. What is not so great is the slanted reality presented by our media and believed by the masses--in every form. 

If one is unemployed, the people around you may feel compassion...at first. But eventually, judgement underlies any sympathy. And it's not just people believing you should have worked harder or saved more--people think that, somehow, being unemployed is a three-year paid vacation. For example, in New York State, because the current rate of unemployment is listed as less than 8.2% as of February 2011, there is no extension beyond 93 weeks of benefits. When Federal legislation was passed granting three-years of unemployment benefits, there was a catch.

New York State has four tiers that categorize the unemployed. Depending on your tier, your eligibility for extended unemployment benefits vary. So, while you have people judging you for not only the loss of your job, but your seemingly "lazy" lifestyle in not having found another--you also get those who judge you for not fully maintaining what are unspoken financial obligations to your social connections...citing the very thing they criticize you for as the reason why you "should" be able to fully participate. Amazed? Wait for it--It gets even better:

Life doesn't stop just because your employment did. Your mortgage, your car payment, your grocery bill, your heat, your electric...all still have to be paid. And unemployment benefits, though a true life-saver for however long one is eligible, is not at all comparable to one's former salary. And it doesn't end there. Social connections to family and friends place EVEN greater pressure on the unemployed.

A birth. A death. A wedding. A bridal shower. A baby shower. A birthday party. An invitation to go to dinner with friends. An invitation to meet for coffee. Responding appropriately to any of these examples are standard ways we strengthen our social connections, with not just family and friends, but with professional colleagues. Now, imagine that your salary goes from, say, $50,000 a year to what you would receive in unemployment benefits from a state like New York, about $18,000 for one year. Your cost of "necessary" living (meaning mortgage/rent, utilities, food costs, car payment, fuel/repair costs, and upkeep--things like home repairs and required insurances for both car and personal property) was at about $30,000 prior to losing your job. You grossed $50,000, but after you paid into your benefits and deducted taxes, what was truly available was about $35,000.

So, that left you with $5,000 a year to save or spend. Mostly spend. Because some of your expenses were tied up in things like education loans--those can be temporarily deferred while one is unemployed BUT interest continues to ecru. While you can theoretically pay the interest on your deferred ed loans, it's not realistic if unemployed.

Other expenses beyond "necessary living" might have been related to your children--there's nothing you can do to change that. New shoes, clothes, school activities, college tuition, doctor visits, dentist visits...it's a never ending cycle of spending. While you can curtail those child-related expenses to some degree, for the most part, when your kid grows out of her sneakers, you have to buy new ones. When your son or daughter has a cavity, it has to be filled.

Maybe some of your expenses related to maintaining a strong social network, like occasionally meeting for dinner or coffee--can cost an individual about $100/month or so, conservatively. That can go. Or can it?

If you can no longer stay connected through social interaction, you isolate yourself...but soon enough, others will begin to do that for you. Even if you over-extend yourself to appease the social-gods. Believe it or not, though joblessness is a wide-spread disease-like phenomenon in 2011, people generally don't get it.

What do I mean by "don't get it"? Here's an example:

Your friend is getting married. It's terrific news. You're very happy. She asks you to be in her wedding party. And, she lives two states away. You and the other bridesmaids are planning her shower. Since you're the only one who is not local, you will be traveling to attend. You pay 1/3 of the shower costs. You buy a shower gift. You buy your dress for the wedding, You must also buy the matching shoes. You stay in a hotel for two nights during the weekend of the shower, and for two nights during the weekend of the actual wedding. All of that sounds wonderful, right?

Wrong.

If one is unemployed, one cannot participate in such things. But the bride will not understand. It is her special day, and surely her friend has some savings...and unemployment. And what about all those designer handbags and nice clothes? If her unemployed friend has those things, surely she can splurge for something like this....

In such a situation, there is an unspoken social expectation that, if important enough, the unemployed individual has money to spend. Of course, this is not the case. And if the unemployed individual has enough backbone to admit that fact, he or she will be judged...as not caring enough, not saving enough, not understanding enough...you get the idea.

It's difficult to lose the ability to earn. Not just difficult. Terrifying. And the unemployed individual may feel a sense of betrayal from the people he or she cares for most when they choose to ignore the new hardship by asking that person to over-extend themselves financially. Yes, it's your special day. Yes, you deserve flowers when you move into a new home. Yes, it's your birthday and last year, she bought you earrings so you expect something similar this year. But your unemployed friend has no job. No job=no money, regardless of how much you may deserve material recognition.

Need another example? 

Your friend gets pregnant. Your friend, sadly and unexpectedly, loses a parent. Your relative invites you to organize (aka pay for) this year's family reunion. Your friends ask you and your plus-one to join them at a local restaurant for a small dinner party. Heck, Christmas! Easter. New Years. Valentine's Day. Mother's Day. Father's Day...and the list goes on and on.

There are always people who will say, "You don't have to spend any money..." but that's a blatant lie. In order to maintain social connections, whether with friends or family, one must be prepared to spend money. Lots of it. But what if one is unemployed?
 
Though the unemployed individual's employment status has altered, their social connections haven't. Anything acquired prior to unemployment is levied against the unemployed individual as a reason for their continued participation in social obligations to maintain social connections: "But you have that nice house...." "But you have such nice furniture...." "But you have two cars...." 

But I have no job....

How do acquisitions prior to losing employment add up to justified social spending? Get out your calculators and start adding up reality, one unemployed-dollar at a time.... 

Money-experts like Suze Orman keep referring to the "new American dream"...I'm not so sure it's all that dreamy, but we do need to unplug ourselves from the Matrix of our previous reality. Even if the unemployed individual has $50,000 in savings and two years of unemployment benefits--a situation better than most--that in no way means he or she can do more than simply attempt to pay their continuing household expenses for those two years...and what happens after that? After their unemployment ends? After their savings dries up? Will that friend who expected you to spend $1500 in expenses for her big day help you pay the bills? No. And if you asked her for a $1500 loan, what do you suppose she'd say???

This is not a "new" America. Anyone at any time in history who works for their wealth and suddenly loses that ability has NEVER been able to continue to live at the same level. Ever. Yet somehow in 2011, social expectations seem to soar as high and as fast as the dollar sinks.

Consider this your first lesson in 21st century etiquette. If you want a party, don't expect others to contribute. If you invite guests to your wedding who live two states away, understand when they can't come. If you suffer the death of a loved one, don't expect people to send expensive floral arrangements. If you have a new baby, understand when far-flung friends and relatives only send a card. If you have a friend who's been out of work for an extended period, understand that any invitation to lunch or coffee has to be followed with the qualifier, "...and it's on me." 

Wrapping your brain around what is being called "the new American dream" is harsh. It's a real bummer. But this is our reality. No one can change it by taking a new pill. No one can unplug you from the unpleasantness. It's time to be self-responsible again. It's time to understand that people in the first half of the 20th century weren't anti-social jerks who didn't know how to throw a party, they were poor. Sixty years later, so are we. Even the $25 lunch is in trouble. 

It's time to re-evaluate our social attitudes and expectations...are you ready?