If I ACTUALLY Wrote a Book...

Interesting first date experiences happen when you take an outlook on dating with a combination of: 

• Carrie Underwood's "The More Boys I Meet"

"It's not like I'm not trying, cuz I'll give anyone a shot once"

• Phoebe Buffay's mantra on dating and soul mates
  
• and the constant struggle of being raised by parents who have taught you that you should simultaneously be an independent woman, but know a gentleman when you see one (thanks a lot, Mom!)

Girl Code: Carly Aquilino Speaks the TRUTH

Based on these totally unrelated pop culture references, I've entertained the idea of going out on dates in hopes of good conversation and decent food/drinks. With some of the...luck...I've had, I could probably write a book. I would want to make it like most B-List celebrity books who have dramatic titles and unnecessarily long subtitles and call it Girl's Gotta Eat: A Collection of Dates I Went On in Hopes of Getting Free Food.

Many close friends know a lot of these stories and can probably guess which story is based on which guy. In an effort to not reveal too much too quickly, the fact that I've never written any of this down before, and an effort to protect anonymity, I've only really thought up what the chapter titles would be called. I've decided I should keep with the dramatic title and super long subtitle theme to make each story its own. In no particular order, I've thought up these titles so far:

• Credit Cards and Concert Tickets: How His GPS Lost Him a Second Date

• The Mass-ter: Your Questioning My Age and My Questioning Your Stability

• Everytime I Opened My Mouth: Either the Band Played or I Drank My Margarita

• "Mad Evasive": Why Breaking Up Over Text Isn't Always Bad

• I Don't Give Out My Number: The Randell Pancakes of the World And Other Men You Meet At Bars

• Can I Have One of Your Bagels? How That Ended Quickly and How Many Other People I Know He's Flirted With

• Metal Mouth: Your Tongue Shouldn't Do That, And Other Things I Some How Knew Without Knowing

• It's Just THAT Guy: Why It's Good to Wear Pants

• Rumor Has It: People Who Pretended to Date Me and The "Boyfriends" I Never Knew I Had

My fear of people finding out these stories are about them has prevented me from ever writing or blogging about it before. I may never actually write about any of it, but it's certainly fun to think about.

Cyber-Bullying and Public Shaming

(source)

Social Media has become a complete sensation in these first years of the twenty-first century. It has been a way to connect with people in ways we have never before been able. This includes the good, the bad and the ugly. While many use the growing numbers of sites to interact with family and friends to enhance their relationships, others have seen ways into taking others down.

Megan Meier was 13 years old when she took her own life due to the effects of social media and what has now become known as cyber-bullying. She thought that an online stranger-turned-friend, “Josh,” was showing an intimate interest in her. Then, the messages became nasty. The messages were so cruel and effected Megan so greatly that she saw no way out. Turns out, a former friend of Megan with whom she encountered a falling out, partnered with her mother and a family acquaintance to create this cyber-profile to specifically target the young girl.

                                     

(source)

When word spread about the cyber-bullying suicide, newspapers approached the story very differently. The Suburban Journals of St. Charles County gave the specifics of the case without revealing the identities of the people behind the profile. Without any specific criminal charges filed and the nature of the people involved (including a minor), the paper cautiously decided to keep the culprits anonymous. The public turned nasty commenting and E-mailing the paper. Public opinion said the paper and its reporters were not being proper journalists and a large part of the truth and story being left out went against journalistic standards. The public wanted to know who to chastise. The public wanted to be a part of the shaming and punishment.

                                     

(source)

Despite public opinion, the Suburban Journals was justified in their right to shy away from revealing the names of any guilty parties. If we observe Gilligan’s Ethics of Care, we know that all individuals are interdependent for achieving their own interests, and those particularly vulnerable to our choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration based on their level of vulnerability and affectedness to one’s choices and no one else’s. The contextual details of the situation are especially important to safeguard and promote the specific interests of those involved. As we measure the various stages of human maturity, we understand society and our choices based on principles, social order and ultimately our cultural expectations.

The unnamed teenage girl wanted to see revenge. Her mother and acquaintance (personal employee) wanted to help. They saw a means of living out their own selfish expectations of watching a young girl suffer. While the public understands that the people behind the “Josh” profile should be punished for their actions, they only want to see them suffer for personal justice. They would punish them not to make the situation right, but to feel that end result was more along the lines of the “eye for an eye” mentality. The Journal did not see how reporting the story with the names of the guilty parties would bring justice to either side of the problem. The law would have been the deciding factor on how those people should have been punished, not the paper. Either way, it would have unfortunately never have brought Megan back.

Unlike the Journal, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch DID reveal the names of those involved. As is the case with all ethical dilemmas, either side of the argument can be debated. While it can be said that the Journal was within their ethical rights to keep the names of those involved out of the story, the Post was not wrong in any way to reveal who they were. We can see Aristotle’s Golden Mean being used in this case. Trying to find a middle ground between right and wrong, the Post knew that reporting the story would not bring any lawful justice to the incident. They also knew that pressure to protect the yet-to-be-convicted was a moot point. The middle ground was to let the information speak for itself as humanly unbiased as possible.

Of course we can also use Bok’s Ethical Decision Making model to make decisions on story like this in the future. Unfortunately, as long as the medium exists, people will use it for negative reasons.  As much as we would like to curb anything like suicide, especially from cyber-bullying, there is a good chance it may continue. In the future, we have to decide how best to approach the situation when reporting it to the public. Ethical Decision Making will help us weigh the pros and cons of the situation. First, we must consult our own conscience, then we must seek alternatives. Ultimately, we must ask ourselves how our actions of reporting a story will affect others. It is only then that we can make a decision that is as morally just as possible.

(source)

There's a Bullseye on Your Forehead

It seems as though it should almost be common sense that if you don’t want to be seen “on the grid,” then you should be living “off the grid.” People often live in a state of knowing what they want, but not wanting to seem predictable. They also know what they want until they have it. Suddenly then, whatever they were looking for seems far less appealing.

If someone goes missing, or a crime has been committed, suddenly all the information needed to track that person down (i.e. security camera recordings, bank withdrawals, credit card purchases, etc.) are priceless information. The regular Joe-Schmoe who lives down the block and minds his own business often times sees this as an invasion.

Target has been forthcoming on its ability to data-mine information about its customers. Studying what these purchase habits may be, helps Target better understand the needs of its biggest consumers showing them great deals the store has to offer that is geared towards what they may be looking for. In my opinion, it’s “crazy” to see how my purchasing habits can influence Target’s marketing people to understand what I may want more of, or what I may need in the future. I think this strategy is pure business genius. Evil genius? Yes, But genius nonetheless.

(source)

This also doesn't necessarily apply to JUST women, but it's funny

I remember a few years ago seeing the biggest generation gap firsthand when it comes to information storage like this. I was on a cruise vacation and walking up and down the “Promenade” deck where some really great deals were going on to celebrate the end of the cruise. I, a sucker for a great deal, stopped at the jewelry counter where you could buy silver bracelets for $1 per inch. As I perused my options, the woman behind the counter was taking care of an elderly woman buying a bracelet for her granddaughter. As most (if not all) cruise vacations go, the employee asked to which room number she should bill this transaction. This woman was beyond infuriated that the employee had asked her this information.

“I don’t want people on this boat knowing where I’m staying! I don’t understand why I can’t just pay you here. All week you’ve all been asking me which room I’m staying in, and I DON’T WANT TO TELL YOU. That’s an invasion of my privacy! Maybe it’s because you’re not an American, but in America this wouldn’t fly. This is ridiculous. I should be able to go back to my room in peace and not have to think about how many people know I’m staying there!”

Knowing what it’s like to be an employee who gets yelled at for things beyond their control, I wanted to stick up for this poor girl. I could see it in her eyes that she wanted to tell the lady off, but knew better. Had the young granddaughter not been standing there, I would have given this customer a piece of my mind in the employee’s defense. But then I also remembered that this woman remembers a time before credit cards, before the Internet, before television even! Remembering how easy it was to live your life worry-free without thinking someone knows something about you must be a fond memory. Even the granddaughter tried to tell her grandmother “Grandma, it’s how you pay! That’s just how it is!” But grandma didn’t want to hear it.

On some level, I think I rely on these marketing techniques. I go to Pandora online all the time in hopes of hearing new music I have to hear. I order office supplies at work through Staples and see Staples banner ads on my personal Facebook page. While that’s annoying, since Erin-At-Home couldn’t care less about paper and pen sales, it’s interesting to see how one site leads to another.

Target’s use of data mining is not cause for ethical concern. If you don’t like being followed, don’t purchase things with your credit card. I personally think we should all be happy that people have cracked a psychological code to help us better understand wants and needs in the business place. It is important to understand that there will always be people who will disagree with this. Many want to have their cake and eat it too. They also want to buy said cake with their credit/debit card and want you to look the other way on their purchase habits.

(source)

The Pluralism Theory in ethics shows there are two sides to every coin. While Target hopes these coins land in their cash registers, their approach can be seen as both wrong and right. People in this day fall victim to purchasing things they often never need, but suddenly feel they must have it. Target has found a way to research our habits and understand how to lure us in with creative and subtle marketing strategies. Many people don’t like to be figured out, but we ultimately like to have “pretty things.” The pluralism keeps us in constant wonder as to whether or not these actions by Target are really the right way to go. Yet people haven’t stopped shopping there. Many may go under protest, but at the end of the day, Target is finding a way to bring people in their doors. Since ethics, much like philosophy, is always up for debate, the Pluralism Theory is proof that even though this course of action may not be right, it’s simultaneously not wrong either.

This ethical debate is also a great example of Mill’s Utilitarian Principle. This principle of utility determines the “rightness” of acts by their effect on one’s happiness. Pregnant women are going to need cribs, highchairs, car seats, diapers, wipes, vitamins, etc. Fulfilling these needs will make pregnant customers happy. Target is in business to help you fulfill those needs in a one-stop-shop atmosphere. You can’t blame a corporation for trying to squeeze a few more pennies out of you with impulse buys either.

(source)

(I’m not sure how Target does this, but they get me to spend close to $50 more than I ever anticipate every time I go in there. I’m not even mad)

Mill’s principle is two-sided. Customers of Target are being lured in by deals specifically geared towards them. Target wants to make them happy knowing they can find these items at their stores. Many may not realize this because Target randomly places the ads and coupons customers are looking for amidst items they have no desire to purchase. Many customers are happy to see sales for items they want and need. They are also happy when they feel this has all happened by chance rather than reason. Target is happy that few people are on to their schemes and even happier every time the cash register rings yet another transaction.

It is possible to also suggest that this particular case is an example of Communitarianism as well.  As stated in the link, This ethical theory is a debate of how individuality and community influence work together to create a particular culture.  This theory may raise more questions than definitive or opinionated answers, but it is interesting to consider. A community can be defined as a web of relationships among individuals that crisscross and reinforce one another. Historically, communities have been small and localized. With the exponential emergence of chain stores like Target, our definition of community is vastly changing. Corporations like this influence style, spending and understanding of our world.  Individuals who are well-integrated into communities are better ale to reason and act in responsible ways than isolated individuals. But if social pressure to conform rises, this could undermine the individual self. 

Target has influenced our community (read: our nation) as a whole. They have found a way to be the influential, well-integrated member of our society. They understand how we think, feel and act as individuals. In turn, we fall prey to their persuasive techniques. This could cause many women to walk around with the exact same, mass-produced, diaper bag thus being less individual. But, they will fulfill the need and community expectation that mothers should have their babies’ belongings in one, fashionable bag.

There have been many times in my life where I have found myself saying one of two things
1) “You’re not mad at what I just said. You’re just mad that I called you out on something you didn’t realize about yourself.” (Often times, the people I’ve said this to find themselves agreeing to this statement - even if they’re not happy to realize it).

2) “I may not always be right, but I’m never wrong.” (I mostly just say this one to ruffle people’s feathers, but I’ve been pleasantly surprised when people have agreed with me).

Overall, people over react at the idea of being tracked by corporations. These major companies don’t want to haunt you in bed at night. They just want you to sleep peacefully in the bed you bought from them.  Target isn’t wrong in trying to figure out what makes people tick and how to get them to buy items from them. It may not be right in the eyes of some, but it isn’t wrong either. I think many people also just don’t like knowing that people can figure out what their next plan of action will be, or what else they might want. If they don’t explicitly say it themselves, they don’t want people to think anything about them. Advertisers and PR practitioners should be wary at their approach and should probably stay under the radar to keep people less concerned, or “creeped out,” but their practices are a win-win to make money and help people find the things they’re looking for.

Cross Your Heart...and Hope They Lie...

                                      (source) 

There are many people in this world who believe it is their civic duty to take the world by storm and drop a bombshell of information in the name of “doing what is right.” Daniel Ellsberg is responsible for the release of the Pentagon Papers, which is one of the biggest leaks of U.S. government secrets. He was quoted in saying “It’s not that whistle-blowers believe there is no need for some things to be kept secret. It’s that they believe some things are wrongfully kept secret.” The funny thing is that it is hard to say secrets exist once someone else knows “private” information. It is also up in the air as to whether or not anything can or should be said.

Half the fun and drama in the ABC Family hit show Pretty Little Liars is knowing the numerous secrets each character is keeping from the other. The show (in the briefest description of an intricate show possible) revolves around four friends with their own set of issues and secrets they’d rather no one know. Their mutual friend, Alison, always seemed to have her nose where it didn’t belong and knew more information about each of them than any of them had hoped. She used this information to manipulate people and get things she needed or wanted threatening to expose people for who they were and what they had done. Alison inexplicably goes missing and the friends are harassed with messages peppered with information that only Alison ever knew.  The girls set out to find out who this is, why they’re doing it, how they know so much information and what they did with Alison and why. The show is based on secrets and how they usually tear people apart before ever bringing them together. It shows how secrets can be used for people, against people, to hurt innocent victims and expose truths that maybe were better off unspoken.

Secrets like this happen in real life as well. In the late 1990s, President Bill Clinton engaged in an extramarital affair with White House Intern, Monica Lewinsky. No actual, legal crime had been committed as they were two consenting adults. But a question of morals was evident as the President was seemingly happily married to his First Lady, Hillary. He had broken his vows and engaged in a physical relationship with another woman; another woman who decided to tell a “friend”. This friend, Linda Tripp, was not going to let this issue be swept under the rug. She had valuable information she felt the government and public should know.

She began recording phone calls between herself and Lewinsky. Through conversations, she found out Lewinsky had signed a false affidavit stating denial of any relationship with the president, that Lewinsky had a dress soiled with Clinton’s DNA, and that she had committed perjury in investigations concerning the President sexually harassing other female government employees. While pretending to be a “friend,” Tripp was using this information to take down the President and his administration. It had been reported that Tripp was worried the Clinton Administration was looking to get rid of her and she needed her own protection, and/or a way to make money.

                                                    (source)

This case is particular interesting as it rests on the credibility of one of the most public figures in the entire world. An extramarital affair did not break any laws; and his ability to be President, up until the story was exposed, was relatively unaffected by any information circulating about his personal life. He had maintained high approval ratings from the public, which spoke volumes about the trust given to help with issues foreign and domestic. Linda Tripp could have very well let this information go and allowed the President to carry on and perform his duties, even those behind closed doors.

It is hard to know if Tripp hadn’t exposed the truth that no one else would have come forward. In a hypothetical sense, anything is possible. Alan Rusbridger quoted Max Frankel (who oversaw the defense of the New York Times) who wrote a memo about the ethical use of leaked information. He said, “My view has almost always been that information which wants to get out will out.” On one hand, Linda Tripp could have done anything or nothing with this information. But the bigger question to ask is why did Monica Lewinsky let this information fall on unsafe ears?

                                                                                (source)

A different perspective is that of the President. After vehement denial, the proof became too solid to ignore. President Clinton could have admitted his own wrongdoings when initially approached. He could have owned up to his actions, or even lied more carefully to cover his tracks. It was only when the pressure became too much that he decided to admit that while he had been “legally accurate” in answering any and all questions, he did not volunteer certain information that gave the whole truth.

This was a heavy secret for Linda Tripp to keep herself. A public family, the nation and the world rested on this secret. If I had to put myself in her shoes, I would have to question my own motives in wanting the world to know this. Would I want to expose the President for being a lying, cheating scumbag proving to the world he was not worthy of one of the highest honors attainable? Or would I want the world to know so that I could financially benefit off of the anguish of others? How would this impact his family - Hillary and Chelsea Clinton? Would movie and book deals come my way? Would I have to legally fight to give the rights away to this story? I must admit that I am a fan of scandal and made-for-TV biopics, but I think mostly the nation needed to know its leader was not holding to his oath of office or his marital promises. It had to have been incredibly hard for the Clintons as a family to deal with something so mortifying while the world looked at them under a microscope, but this was a secret that was only going to be halted in its tracks if someone forced it that way.

                                                     (source)

Of course, in the 90s, exposing secrets was a completely different ball game than it is today. The three-sided coin of this story, Bill Clinton’s side, Monica Lewinsky’s side and Linda Tripp’s version, all had to be deciphered individually through different messages given to the public. All messages given to different news outlets with different biases and different motives. There was little room for social reaction on the level it is today with social media and its instant access to information. On top of worrying about public reaction to the scandal itself, I would have to worry about my own reputation. And I am not at all sure which Saturday Night Live actor/actress/guest star would play me in the satires of this salacious story.

John Goodman as Linda Tripp SNL

Linda Tripp attempted to take it in stride. It is hard to watch yourself be made into a fool on a show like Saturday Night Live, and be ridiculed not only for what secrets were exposed, but as a human being as well. Tripp's appearance was the prod of many jokes and her looks after having plastic surgery were poked at as well.

As a media professional with a story this high profile, it is hard to say if there is a way to NOT be entangled in the story. I myself may become part of the story just like Linda Tripp did. I think a job that revolves around scandal, is an inevitable fate. It must be taken with the territory. It can make or break a career...and a life...

                                                  (source)

Whether it’s a dramatized series, or a real-life drama, everything has different sides to weigh in on. In Alison's case in Pretty Little Liars, she may have considered keeping her mouth shut and nose out of other people's business and perhaps she wouldn't be "dead" (SPOILER ALERT: she's not actually dead). Her friends could have been less afraid of her and helped delve into why she acted the way she did and found out who/what she needed protection from before any of the mess even began. The story is still moving and is anyone's game at this point. Without the secrets and betrayal, there would be no story.

                                                (source)

In the case of Linda Tripp, honesty and betrayal go hand-in-hand. She could have easily forgotten any of the President’s scandal had ever happened, she could have made things worse for herself and others by blackmailing them to reveal their own information, or she could have done exactly what she did, which was open up about everything she knew happening behind closed doors. Monica Lewinsky could have salvaged enough self-respect to keep from being “the other woman,” she could have confessed and signed a true affidavit citing her relationship with President Clinton, she could have continued her affair and never told anyone, she could have confessed to Hillary Clinton alone, or she could have exposed Bill Clinton as a monster and played herself off as a victim. The President himself could have upheld his marriage vows, could have been forthright with information when pressed for it, could have completely lied about the affair all together or could have come up with a better strategy that would have kept him from getting impeached. Whatever x, y or z combination that could have come from this all falls back to Frankel’s words that information that wants to come out, will come out. And come out it did.

                                                      (source)