It's always upsetting when you realize a lot of people are younger than you are. Really, everyone no longer in elementary, junior high, or high school should be older than I am. There are certain kinds of people, though, whose youthfulness is especially egregious.
1) Doctors
Doctors should not be younger than I am. Doctors, from what I know of them from 1990s television, spend approximately 25 years in school, and then an additional 56 years as residents. They spend years and years falling in love with one another, having sex in closets, developing tragic friendships with people who are dying, and fighting off knife-wielding attackers in the emergency room before they become actual doctors. So the fact that every specialist I see looks at me appraisingly from eyes that never appraised the 1980s is upsetting and wrong and generally unacceptable.
2) Newscasters
Newscasters should not be younger than I am. Sure, the ones who look a little bit like high-class prostitutes or rich men's mistresses - they can be youthful (in that soon-to-overripe kind of way). But the ones who've cut their call-girl hair and developed those immovable hair hats should not be younger than I am. They are supposed to give the impression of gravely delivering grave news they don't fully understand because they're newscasters, not journalists, god dammit, and they're supposed to do so using lips that existed prior to the year 1990.
3) Mothers in telephone/internet provider commercials
Actresses playing mothers in telephone/ internet provider commercials should not be younger than I am. You know the ones I mean - they're often ethically ambiguous, not actively attractive, but not noticeably unattractive, and they are enviable because they are lucky enough to have husbands who don't know how to use the television remote and children who have attitudes and inappropriate boyfriends. They look both despairing ("That's a remote, you darling, hapless man!") and smug ("I have a husband, children and a television, you darling, hapless spinster!"), and as of a couple of years ago, they started looking about ten years younger than I am.
Thank God I'm not a successful professional or a contented family woman, or I'd be surrounded by such upstarts all the time.
POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough.
I'm concerned about the Catastrophizer. Not the individual (although there is much there to be seriously concerned about), but the column. That's right. Column. Not blog. Blogs are about descents into depression, whether knee-high boots are passe, and/or whether political discourse in the US has become poisoned by increasingly poisonous forms of partisanship. Or they're themselves poisonously partisan. Columns are different. They're written in the New Yorker or by me. My concerns are as follows:
1) Smugness: How smug is too smug? A certain degree of didacticism is unavoidable, as I am trying to instruct others in a specific way of thinking. A whiff or two of reproach may rise from my responses to letter-writers as I am generally gently pointing out that they are witless. But will readers read these attitudes as indicating smugness? Imagine me chuckling richly and smirking complacently as I review my work? I scan each sentence with a suspicious and disappointed eye. A sinking feeling accompanies every edit. Each column is less worthy than the last, which itself was undoubtedly gruesomely inept. I may play the role of instructor, but only because the subject is dispiriting.
2) Repetitiveness: I'm beginning to notice that my responses to letters are beginning to resemble one another. For how much longer will people read my column if it becomes simply an exhortation to the letter-writers to stop being stupid and to start questioning themselves instead of others, which they probably won't do very well anyway because they're stupid?
3) Premise fatigue: Initially, this column was supposed to record my reflections on and instructions for catastrophizing. Then I realized I could not possibly find enough to say about catastrophizing if I were doing this twice a week, so I introduced the Dear Catastophizer angle. Very few people indeed took advantage of that, so I started purloining letters sent to other people. That has given me something to talk about. But will the column become uncomfortably reliant on the letters? Will they become merely props? Or rather, will people become tired of the fact that they are clearly merely props? But what if I assume my always potentially hostile readers have tired of the letter concept and switch it up, only to find they really enjoyed it and have stopped reading the column as a result?
Catastrophizing is like exercise in that makes you tired. It is unlike exercise in that it doesn't make you look any better.
Send the Catastrophizer your requests for advice and/or rationalizations using the form conveniently provided HERE. I will publish my responses on the THE CATASTROPHIZER page.
POLITE DISCLAIMER: This site is intended for entertainment purposes only. If you are not entertained, fair enough.