It’s always fascinating when new websites or apps begin to sweep the interwebs like a phenomenon (or in some cases, like a plague). I remember when Napster was bad ass, when Facebook swallowed the masses (and Farmville nearly achieved Class A drug status), when Twitter was no longer primarily populated with Ashton Kutcher fan-boys. And the latest web obsession to hit the mainstream is Chatroulette. Whether you equate the term with the casino game of luck, or the potentially lethal Russian variety, roulette is all about spinning the wheel (or the cylinder of a revolver) and taking a chance. In this case, you turn on your webcam, click to connect, and see what happens. And as you might expect, the results can be … eye-opening.
Personally, I’ve never experienced the awkward voyeurism of Chatroulette first-hand. (No, really!) I don’t have a webcam, and shoot – I don’t appear on camera unless I’m getting paid for it, baby! (Or it’s being archived in a “private collection”. Awwwwww yeah.) But srsly, I have to admit that I’m struck by the lurid fascination of watching a mix of cam-whores, douches and weirdos making fools of themselves. And of course, the promise of endless wang is ever so tempting. The folks at College Humor helpfully created this graphic to better illustrate the Chatroulette penis probability factor:
In this case, a “dick” does not equal a jerk. But speaking of “jerking” …Like any true web fad, Chatroulette has grown immensely popular in a very short period of time – and is already attracting its fair share of controversy. The site was launched last November by a high-school student in Moscow, and in 5 short months it has already attracted 500,000 daily visitors worldwide. But as soon as news outlets began carrying the story, it came under criticism for being potentially dangerous, particularly for young chatters. I even came across a Chatroulette screenshot where someone had managed to manipulate their cam feed with a loop of the Jonas Brothers, which caused their young, female chat partners to erupt into squeegasms. As noted by Switched, all it would take is one devious chatter managing to lure a 12 year old girl into flashing her prepubescent chest (or worse) for a lawsuit to begin raging. Sure, the site states that users must be 16 years of age or older (shouldn’t that be 18?!) but there’s no age check or verification to speak of. And yes, websites like Yahoo Chat have long provided online meeting spots for the mentally depraved and curiously naive. But the webcam angle takes things to a whole new level of sketchiness, in my opinion.
So, my web savvy readers, have you tried Chatroulette? I’d love to hear some personal (mis)adventures. And for those who have absolutely no idea what I’m talking about, check out this short Chatroulette movie on YouTube for a little look-see at the way it’s used and abused. Oh, and remember that thing I said about endless penis shots? The makers of the documentary said that during the process of filming, they saw more than one hundred shots of male genitalia, versus only two that belonged to the ladies. Don’t say I didn’t warn you! ^_^
When someone uses the word “feminist” to describe themselves, I often wince a little internally, as the word seems to have a wide range of intensities depending upon who you’re talking to. Using the most basic definition of the word, feminism is “the belief that women and men should have equal social, economic, sexual, and political rights”. Or to break it down even more simply, it’s the idea that chicks and dudes should be considered equals. In that respect, I think that most of us (men and women alike) could be considered feminists. Outside of some cheeky banter about how women should be in the kitchen makin’ sammiches, most folks – at least those in/around my generation – would agree that old social structures are pretty much dead, and we should all be on equal social and economic footing.
But there are some who take feminism to a rather radical and fiery place, and while I appreciate their passion, I just can’t get on board with righteous indignation. There will always be some form of “objectifying women” out there (most often in the media), but women shouldn’t act so pure and innocent – we do it as well. Visit any Vegas-area “all male revue” and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
Don’t ask me how I know that … 
However, I have to admit that the righteously feminine lady-beast buried deep within my breast was a little conflicted when I saw the newest Barbie, which debuted at the 2010 Toy Fair:
Does this laptop make my ass look big?Meet Computer Engineer Barbie, Mattel’s attempt at being culturally relevant – although the credit/blame isn’t all theirs. Apparently they conducted an online vote for Barbie’s newest profession, and interestingly enough, women voters actually preferred news anchor as the career choice, while men threw their votes behind computer engineering. Both dolls will be on the shelves this fall, but the one above is getting all the media attention, with most calling it a positive advancement. But I’m curious as to what the consensus is amongst women who are actually part of the nerdy niche they’re trying to appeal to.
I have to admit that I’ve always had issues with Barbie dolls, dating back to being 4 or 5 years old and being blinded by a wall of Barbie blond in the toy store, when all I wanted was a redheaded doll that looked more like me. I know there have been “friends and family” in the Mattel collection with other hair colors and ethnicities, and there have been some failed experiments at giving her different looks over the years. I can appreciate that the “golden standard” (as it were) has become what little girls expect when they ask for a Barbie doll. But the bland lack of diversity bothers me – and it gets even worse when Mattel tries to cram her into every mold possible.
Barbie has had well over 100 careers by now, from being a doctor to a rock star. And inevitably, she’s always rocking the perfect blond hair, glassy-eyed smile, and humanly impossible body proportions. But it struck a nerve when I saw Mattel’s interpretation of what a “computer engineer” (read: geek) would look like. They claim to have worked with the Society of Women Engineers to create “as realistic an ensemble as possible”, and I understand that they want to appeal to the pink and pastel lovin’ demographic, but c’mon! Pink glasses and wristwatch; a t-shirt and jacket covered in binary code and circuitry; skin-tight, sparkly black pants; a Bluetooth in her ear and laptop that’s literally attached to her arm? *Facepalm* Is anyone else experiencing a deja vu to Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde?
Here’s the thing … What I love best about geeky women is that they DO NOT fit a mold. While a news anchor or doctor might be expected to look a certain way and dress specifically for their profession, there are a far too broad range of nerds n’ geeks n’ gamers out there to be able to lump us all into a certain style or mentality. It’s cool that Mattel is finally recognizing a career that they’ve completely ignored for the last 30 years, but if Computer Engineering Barbie is their idea of an accurate representation, I think it fails pretty hardcore.
So what do you think, geeky gals? Is it a laughable attempt at gettin’ with the times, or a positive step toward encouraging the youngins to look at computer sciences as a career choice? Oh and just for the hell of it, I found this picture from Forbes that demonstrates what Barbie’s proportions would look like if she was in human form. (Real gal on the left, Barbie-ized version on the right.) Talk about someone who needs to run to the kitchen for a sandwich, stat!
And so it goes.
On January 22nd, we’re poised to lose Conan O’Brien as a fixture of late-night television – at least for a time, if NBC’s proposed contract settlement is carried out. (It’s been said that they’ll ban Conan from hosting a new show for anywhere from 1-1/2 to over 3 years, evil bastards.) It’s a poignant thing, what feels like an end of an era. After all, Late Night With Conan O’Brien debuted when I was just entering the 8th grade, and I remember it being a minor mark of bad-assery if you were able to sneak out and watch it after your parents went to bed. (Hey, this was 1993. No one had the internet and we took our small rebellions where we could get them!)
Myself, I didn’t really discover my interest in the show until the late ’90s, when I was a little more worldly and appreciative of the ribald humor. And even though he’s 17 years my senior, Conan always felt like that massively cool (yet utterly dorky) older brother who was whip-smart, humorously self-deprecating, and would do just about anything for a laugh. And it was that perfect blend of brilliance and dweebery that made him so endearing to so many in my generation. You know, my grandparents always preferred David Letterman. My parents were occasional watchers of Jay Leno. But Conan – he belonged to us. We of the “X and Y” generations – the ones who prefer our humor with an equal dash of snark and smarts, and an extra dose of jackassery. And what can I say? I feel an especial kinship to the man, given that we’re both tall, Irish gingers who are practically translucent. ;-)
Heh … I just re-read what I wrote and it almost sounds like I’m giving a eulogy. But it doesn’t feel so far from the mark. Honestly, I never thought The Tonight Show was right for Conan. It was too steeped in certain expectations and traditions – and above all else, too damn early in the schedule. Talk about crampin’ mah style! After all, Late Night was the reliable show you could turn on after a night of watching bad movies over beers with good friends. It was just late enough to fall asleep to, and just early enough so you could watch the whole thing and still have hope for a reasonable amount of sleep before an early morning class or commute. While Conan certainly had the moxie to reinvigorate The Tonight Show back to its Carson-esque glory, who knows if it would have worked out – even had dumb ol’ Leno actually retired as promised.
Speaking of which, many people are looking to Leno as the bad guy in this equation, and I’m not sure what I feel. It was a shitty stunt to pull – to decide in 2008 that instead of moving on, he’d start hosing his own talk show as a lead-in to the Conan-helmed Tonight Show. But I suppose we can’t fault him completely for the abysmal ratings that his 10pm spin-off received, which effectively led to a domino effect against the rest of the late-night lineup. Still, why is NBC being Leno’s bitch? Why are they so dead-set on keeping him happy? Why not put him on a six month hiatus and see if Conan’s ratings improved without Leno mucking up the lead-in? It seems like so much could have been done without resorting to NBC’s attempts to “demote” Conan to his previous time-slot. I agree with his statement – which I’ve heard had Conan in tears while writing it – in which he asserted that changing The Tonight Show’s format and schedule would effectively destroy the show. It could have been heading for destruction (maybe even cancellation) anyway, but Conan is a resilient fellow who pulled Late Night out of creative and ratings-based slumps before. I’ll bet he could have done it again. But I guess now we’ll never know.
So I’m with Coco – whatever that means, at this point. Boycotting Jay Leno? No problem, I never watch him to begin with. But what’s left to do? Hope that Conan finds a loophole in the settlement that would maybe permit him to produce a web-based show until the dust settles? It could be a brilliant maneuver, and I’m sure that sites like Funny Or Die would love to partner with him to produce something groundbreaking and awesome. I guess we’ll just have to wait to see. But one thing’s for certain … The jolly red giant may be lost, but not gone forever.
