Get your mind out of the gutter! The big “O” I’m talking about is the Olympics!
It’s that time again, The Winter Olympics. For us in Canada, this is the big one, no one really cares about the summer Olympics here, we are all about the winter sports.
About a week or so ago during our opening meeting at work we were given a list of rules regarding the Olympics. A lot of them made sense, no talking about it on social media, no using the logos in posters etc. But then at the bottom of the page there was a list of things we couldn’t SAY. Since when can people stop someone from using certain words? I didn’t think you could copy write something said orally. Apparently I was mistaken.
Here is a list of the forbidden words:
- 2014 Games
- 2014 Olympics
- Winter 2014
- Olympic Fire
- The Olympics
and last but not least
- Gold (Yup, that’s right, we can’t say ‘gold’!)
Like I said, I understand not using certain phrases, logos etc in advertising, social media and the like but not allowing people to say them seems extreme. We were told, even if someone starts a conversation with us about the Olympics were aren’t allowed to discuss it, just change the subject. Apparently there are actually people who are paid to go around and try to lure people into conversations about the Olympics and then possibly give them a fine if they use any of the trademarked words.
So much for national pride.
It makes it hard to have small talk with someone while avoiding something so significant. The Olympics is everywhere right now, tv, newspapers, facebook, yet we have to pretend it doesn’t exist to avoid possibly being fined. If I understand correctly the main reason is that they don’t want people to think our store is associated with the Olympics since we haven’t paid to use the rights. Again, I don’t understand how that can apply to small talk conversations but hey, no one asked me.
There is a song by Ani Difranco that has a great line: “God help you if you are an ugly girl, ‘course too pretty is also your doom, ’cause everyone harbors a secret hatred for the prettiest girl in the room”. I always loved that line. It is a perfect example of how no matter how you look you get judged. Maybe it is in everyone’s best interest to be average looking. I feel on a scale of 10, people who are a 3 to an 8 probably get by fine, it’s the two extremes that have to deal with the most scrutiny.
It is always said that girls are worse when it comes to judging each other. I am not sure why but we, as a gender, tend to try and cut each other down. Even images that are supposed to empower one type of look usually only does it by bringing down all others. I am sure you have seen things on the internet that say things such as “real women are curvy” or ” real men want curves, only dogs go for bones”. Sure, that’s great if you are a curvy women but what about all the other body types? Because they aren’t curvy they aren’t “real”? I feel like statements like that are completely hypocritical. They are trying to make a statement about magazine images and saying not all women look like that but in the process they are essentially making the same statements the magazine images are; that all women should fit a certain mould.
I am not a scientist, nor am I a doctor but as far as I know physical appearance does not have any affect on intelligence or ability. Yet people are frequently judged like the two are connected. Why is there the stereotype that if you are attractive you are dumb, self involved and mean? Being unattractive does not make someone intelligent. If anything a person’s actions could be altered by how they are treated based on their looks but then whose fault is that?
I have always disliked negative sales pitches, whether it is in advertising or in politics, it turns me off. I want to know why your product/candidate is qualified not why the opponent isn’t. Something that really bothered me recently was this past winter when Justin Trudeau was running for leadership of the Liberal Party (in Canada, for those outside my country). I noticed that a lot of comments were made about his appearance. People tried to imply that because he was attractive (and has excellent hair) he somehow was less qualified to be in the running for Prime Minister. Attack ads were made from clips of him modeling at a charity event. How is that a bad thing? I will never understand the logic but some of his biggest “flaws” that have been highlighted often refer to his looks and “young” age (he is 41). It isn’t like he is some random guy who woke up one day and said “hey, I think I’m going to try and become the Prime Minister”, politics are in his blood. His grandfather served in the cabinet and his father was Prime Minister! I mean it is what he grew up with, I’m sure he knows a thing or two.
Anyway, this was a pretty random post, went on some tangents, took a few loops. Hope you stayed on for the ride!