Category: culture

  • When Dinner Becomes a Competitive Sport

    When Dinner Becomes a Competitive Sport

    Last night I took my family to the wildly popular Din Tai Fung at Del Amo Fashion Center. The restaurant is so sought after that reservations are practically mandatory. We arrived at 5:15, where the hostess handed me one of those vibrating plastic squares whose sole purpose is to inform you that civilization has deemed you worthy of a table.

    The place hummed with confidence.

    While countless restaurants sit half-empty, echoing like abandoned aircraft hangars, Din Tai Fung radiates the quiet swagger of a business that knows people will happily wait an hour for dumplings. Crowds are persuasive. We instinctively trust a line.

    Let me say at the outset that I have nothing but respect for the restaurant. The food was fresh, the service polished, and the operation impressively efficient.

    I probably won’t return.

    The restaurant isn’t the problem.

    We are.

    More specifically, our method of eating.

    The pilgrimage began a month ago when my teenage daughter announced that we had to go. I immediately suspected the true maître d’ behind this reservation.

    TikTok.

    She already had the menu mapped out on her phone like General Patton preparing the invasion of Sicily. We surrendered command without resistance.

    Soon the table filled with cucumber salad, soy noodle salad, chicken dumplings, spicy chicken wontons, garlic string beans, sesame noodles, and spicy noodles.

    Then came dessert.

    Naturally, dessert wasn’t merely consumed.

    It was documented.

    My daughter carefully filmed her chocolate-and-mochi xiao long bao with sea salt cream, followed by a mountain of mango shaved ice, ensuring that posterity—and TikTok—would know she had participated in this important cultural event.

    The food was certainly good.

    But I never experienced the culinary epiphany I had been promised.

    Instead, I found myself eating an astonishing quantity of carbohydrates swimming through enough sauce to lubricate heavy machinery. Every dish seemed to plead for a dinner roll that never arrived. By the end of the meal I was pleasantly full but oddly unsatisfied, as though my body kept asking,

    “Where exactly was the protein?”

    The service, though gracious, occasionally drifted into theater.

    Our server—a delightful young woman—carefully demonstrated how to combine vinegar, soy sauce, and chili oil with the solemnity of a physicist unveiling the double helix. Her instructions were earnest and impeccably delivered.

    I couldn’t help wondering whether I was preparing dumplings or splitting the atom.

    Then came the part I liked least.

    Family-style dining.

    In theory, it is wonderful.

    Everyone samples everything.

    Conversation flows.

    The table becomes a communal celebration.

    In practice, our table resembled an Olympic qualifying event.

    Chopsticks lunged in every direction.

    Bowls crossed paths.

    Sauce migrated across plates, fingers, sleeves, and probably several neighboring ZIP codes. I found myself wishing I’d packed a HAZMAT suit.

    Adding to the chaos, my TikTok-inspired daughter attacked the shared dishes with the urgency of someone preparing for hibernation, leaving her twin sister, my wife, and me politely negotiating whatever remained.

    The meal became less about eating than about strategic timing.

    Should I grab another dumpling now?

    Will there still be string beans in thirty seconds?

    Has anyone actually tasted the sesame noodles, or have they already disappeared?

    After paying the bill, a staggering $200, and we finally arrived home, my wife quietly toasted herself a protein pancake, spread peanut butter on top, drizzled it with honey, and ate what amounted to her real dinner.

    Then she made an observation that explained the entire evening.

    “I never relax during shared meals,” she said. “It always feels like an eating competition, and I end up with the short end of the stick.”

    The moment she said it, I realized I felt exactly the same way.

    The problem wasn’t Din Tai Fung.

    The problem was our assumption that communal eating automatically creates communal joy.

    Sometimes it creates scarcity.

    Scarcity creates competition.

    Competition is not particularly relaxing.

    I’ve reached a simple conclusion.

    Next time, everyone orders their own entrée.

    Everyone eats at their own pace.

    Everyone leaves satisfied.

    Family-style dining remains a lovely idea. It promises abundance, togetherness, and the pleasure of sampling half the menu.

    Sometimes it delivers exactly that.

    Other times it turns dinner into a low-grade food draft where you’re calculating dumpling trajectories instead of enjoying your family’s company.

    When that happens, I can’t help asking myself a simple question.

    Why didn’t I just walk next door to Frida, order a platter of rib-eye tacos, sip a mango margarita, and let everyone else fight over the last dumpling?

  • Against the Inner Gollum

    Against the Inner Gollum

    One of the defining songs of my adolescence was Earth, Wind & Fire’s “Devotion.” Like Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On,” it is suffused with the exuberance and spiritual energy of Black Gospel. Listening to these songs hints at the transcendence many people seek in church: the paradox of finding yourself by losing yourself in a purpose greater than your own appetites. This is devotion in its richest sense—not self-expression but self-transcendence.

    That vision stands in stark contrast to the modern creed of radical individualism, which teaches that personal desire is its own moral authority. Under this doctrine, adulthood becomes an endless extension of adolescence, each new appetite demanding satisfaction, each boundary inviting transgression. We congratulate ourselves for “being authentic” while quietly cultivating our inner Gollum—small, ravenous, and consumed by the fantasy that the next indulgence will finally bring contentment. Instead, the result is often loneliness, nihilism, and despair.

    How we resist that inner Gollum, and what it means to devote ourselves to something larger than ourselves, lies at the heart of the human condition. Religion has traditionally answered those questions by directing us toward a pure heart, integrity, reverence, gratitude, and love—love of our Creator, for those who believe, and love of our fellow human beings. Whether one accepts its theological claims or not, religion insists that character is formed not by indulging every desire but by disciplining desire in service of a higher good. The promise that feeding our inner Gollum will make us happy has always been one of civilization’s most seductive—and most enduring—lies.

    The more difficult question concerns the source of that higher good. Does authentic devotion require submission to an orthodox religious tradition, or can spirituality detached from doctrine cultivate the same moral depth? Are we mistaking recreational spirituality for genuine devotion? Is morality grounded in divine command, or does it emerge through human evolution and social cooperation—what atheist philosopher Elizabeth Anderson calls “reciprocal claim making,” the process by which societies negotiate mutual obligations and gradually construct moral authority?

    No figure looms larger over that debate than Jesus. Whatever one’s theological commitments, his rhetorical originality and moral imagination have made him one of history’s most enduring voices on the nature of goodness. Nearly two thousand years later, we remain captivated by his life, teachings, and identity. That continuing fascination lies at the center of Adam Gopnik’s essay “We’re Still Not Done With Jesus,” which examines one of the great questions of biblical scholarship: Are the Gospels fundamentally historical memories of an extraordinary teacher, or are they literary creations shaped by the conventions and mythic imagination of the Greco-Roman world?

    Adam Gopnik observes that the Gospels are not books written by someone so much as stories told to someone. In discussing Elaine Pagels’ Miracles and Wonder, he places her within the tradition of historical Jesus scholarship, which treats the Gospels not as straightforward biographies but as “palimpsests of lore, legend, and propaganda.” I encountered a similar sensibility in Emmanuel Carrère’s genre-defying The Kingdom, where history, memory, faith, and literary imagination continually overlap. From this perspective, narratives such as the Virgin Birth are understood less as eyewitness reports than as adaptations of familiar Greek and Hellenistic literary motifs.

    Gopnik extends this argument to the Passion and Resurrection. He notes that visions of the risen Jesus resemble what psychologists today might describe as bereavement experiences. The disciples believed they had encountered their crucified teacher after his death, while Paul, who never met Jesus during his lifetime, grounded his apostleship in explicitly visionary encounters. For Gopnik, these experiences need not be dismissed as fraudulent; rather, they belong to recognizable patterns of religious experience that recur throughout history.

    Nor, Gopnik argues, were the Gospel writers simple village storytellers faithfully recording local memories. Drawing on Robyn Faith Walsh’s The Origins of Early Christian Literature, he portrays them as educated authors who belonged to “a small, erudite upper crust.” Their writings reveal literary sophistication, weaving together a rich latticework of Greek rhetorical forms, biblical allusions, and inherited traditions. As Gopnik memorably puts it, “Their writings bear all the marks of that sharp-elbowed circle and none of the gentle gatherings of group memory.”

    Within this literary world, Jesus emerges alongside familiar Hellenistic figures—magi, sages, miracle workers, and wise tricksters. Walsh observes that many of these protagonists defeat their opponents through clever repartee, aphorisms, and parables. Gopnik is not arguing that Jesus is simply another fictional hero. Rather, he suggests that the evangelists employed literary conventions already familiar to their audiences in order to elevate Jesus into a figure of universal significance.

    To illustrate the point, Gopnik offers an unexpected comparison. Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, he argues, mythologizes Malcolm in much the same way that the Gospel of Mark mythologizes Jesus. Both works transform historical figures into larger-than-life moral symbols by drawing upon established literary traditions. Mythmaking, in this sense, is not necessarily deception; it is one of humanity’s oldest methods of expressing truth.

    Neither Gopnik nor Pagels reduces Christianity to a cynical fabrication dressed in Greek clothing. On the contrary, both regard it as one of civilization’s greatest imaginative syntheses. Christianity fused Jewish expectation, Greek literary culture, Roman history, and profound moral insight into a vision that continues to resist simple explanation.

    At the heart of that synthesis lies a startling reversal of ordinary assumptions about power. Paul declares, “When I am weak, then I am strong.” The Christian ideal does not glorify domination but humility, sacrifice, service, and love. To embrace weakness voluntarily, to endure insults and suffering while loving one’s enemies, represented, as Gopnik observes, “a way of thinking about power and suffering with little precedent in the ancient world.”

    That inversion has always appeared absurd. Indeed, its apparent absurdity became one of Christianity’s greatest philosophical attractions. Søren Kierkegaard famously argued that faith requires a leap beyond the limits of reason. Gopnik, however, remains skeptical of this move, joking that Kierkegaard’s understanding of faith comes perilously close to George Costanza’s comic principle that something cannot really be true unless it seems impossible to believe.

    Where Gopnik expresses his deepest reservations is over the doctrine of substitutionary atonement—the claim that God’s justice required the sacrificial death of Christ before humanity could be reconciled to Him. He recalls literary critic William Empson’s horror at “a cosmos ruled by an irrational deity whose rage toward humanity can be placated only by his son’s torture and death.” In contemporary Christianity, Gopnik observes, many believers quietly emphasize Jesus’ teachings on compassion, forgiveness, and service while giving comparatively little attention to doctrines such as eternal damnation or substitutionary atonement.

    More literal forms of Christianity, Gopnik suggests, often arise from a longing for certainty in a world defined by ambiguity and historical change. Humanism offers no final authority; it evolves, stumbles, corrects itself, and remains vulnerable to human weakness. Religion promises something different: an authoritative moral order anchored beyond history. Yet, Gopnik argues, every human authority eventually disappoints, producing an endless cycle of certainty, doubt, reform, and renewed certainty.

    Even so, he concludes that Christianity cannot simply be dismissed. The human hunger for love, moral purpose, and certainty has ensured its enduring power. Those who reject its theological claims would do well to understand why millions continue to find within it a compelling account of what it means to be human.

    Perhaps those who cannot embrace Christianity will seek devotion elsewhere—in another religious tradition, in Viktor Frankl’s search for meaning, or in Steven Pressfield’s conviction that disciplined artistic creation is itself an act of service to humanity.

    Whatever path one chooses, one conclusion seems difficult to escape.

    Living for your inner Gollum is not enough.

    Human beings require devotion to something greater than themselves.

  • The Wrinkled Prune

    The Wrinkled Prune

    In 1989, I became infatuated with a Pennsylvania band called The Ocean Blue, especially their haunting song “Drifting, Falling.” Naturally, I needed the CD. For reasons that now escape me, I decided to buy it at one of the strangest retail establishments I have ever entered: a Northern California gift shop called The Wrinkled Prune.

    How do I describe The Wrinkled Prune?

    It would be easier to describe what it didn’t sell.

    The store trafficked in novelty candies, decorative soaps, greeting cards, party supplies, imported chocolates, whimsical knickknacks, coffee mugs with forgettable slogans, scented candles, stuffed animals, and dozens of miscellaneous objects whose sole purpose seemed to be occupying shelf space until someone bought them out of mild confusion.

    But merchandise wasn’t the real mystery.

    The real mystery was this:

    Why did The Wrinkled Prune exist?

    And why on earth would anyone give a store that name?

    The answer begins with the owner.

    I attended high school with him. I’ll call him T. He drifted around the popular crowd, but never as one of its genuine members. He functioned more like its court jester—the lovable mascot whose chief social responsibility was to laugh at himself before everyone else could. Slightly overweight and perpetually goofy, T possessed a remarkable gift for turning his own awkwardness into entertainment. Whenever something struck him as funny—which was often—he erupted into volcanic laughter. His entire body convulsed. His fists clenched. He bounced on the balls of his feet while his thick black hair flopped wildly in every direction like a malfunctioning wind-up toy.

    Most people recoil from ridicule.

    T converted it into currency.

    After graduation, however, he seemed directionless. His father, a successful businessman, apparently decided that if purpose wouldn’t find his son, perhaps purpose could be purchased. So he bought T a gift shop.

    One afternoon I wandered inside. T stood behind the counter surrounded by several employees—all attractive young women in their late teens. I couldn’t help imagining the father’s reasoning. Maybe ownership would transform his son into a businessman. Maybe responsibility would attract confidence. Maybe confidence would attract a girlfriend. Parents have financed stranger dreams.

    In retrospect, The Wrinkled Prune felt like high school extended by other means.

    The name itself was a form of self-parody. A prune occupies an unfortunate place in the cultural imagination. It conjures wrinkles, old age, constipation, nursing homes, and the slow betrayal of the human body. Throughout adolescence T had made himself the punchline. Why stop now? Why not build an entire business around the joke?

    Unfortunately, self-awareness is not a business model.

    The Wrinkled Prune hemorrhaged money. Within a year it vanished, leaving behind little more than an unforgettable name and my copy of The Ocean Blue. I don’t know what became of T. He always struck me as fundamentally decent—a man less interested in success than in being liked. I hope life eventually showed him more kindness than high school had.

    But I have never forgotten that store.

    In fact, I think nearly all of us carry around some version of The Wrinkled Prune.

    What I’m describing is the vanity project: an enterprise undertaken less because the world needs it than because its creator needs the world to notice it. It is a monument to the self disguised as a public service. In the pre-digital age, vanity projects usually belonged to the wealthy. A millionaire financed an independent film no one watched, published an autobiography no one requested, endowed a museum wing bearing his name, or commissioned an oversized oil portrait in which he appeared to possess the moral gravity of Abraham Lincoln. Vanity required substantial capital.

    Today, vanity has been democratized. For the price of a webcam, microphone, and broadband connection, anyone can launch a podcast, livestream for six hours to an audience of twelve, or begin every video with the solemn declaration, “People have been asking me…” when no such people exist. The internet has transformed vanity from a luxury reserved for aristocrats into a subscription service available to anyone with Wi-Fi. Fortunately, not every podcast, YouTube channel, or livestream is a vanity project. Some genuinely educate, entertain, or enrich public life. The defining question is not whether anyone is watching, but whether the creator would continue producing the work if no one were.

    The desire beneath all this is perfectly human. We want to matter. We want to belong. We want to participate in the conversation instead of watching it through the window. But the digital age has turned belonging into branding. We are encouraged to cultivate audiences instead of friendships, niches instead of curiosities, and identities narrow enough for algorithms to categorize. We are constantly reminded to “find our lane,” as though a human being should resemble a freeway exit.

    I am hardly exempt.

    For fifteen years I maintained a YouTube channel devoted primarily to watches. On its best days, it attracted thousands of viewers. Yet over time I noticed an uncomfortable truth: every new video fueled the very obsession I claimed to be examining. At sixty-four, I have reached the stage of life where accumulation should be giving way to simplification. Instead, the algorithm quietly whispered, “Buy another watch. Make another video.”

    Occasionally I wandered away from watches and made videos about other subjects that interested me.

    The algorithm responded with majestic indifference.

    Business was slow.

    No one wandered into The Wrinkled Prune.

    That lesson was difficult but valuable. Unless you possess genuine expertise or offer something distinctive, a channel devoted to miscellaneous fascinations resembles a gift shop selling decorative soaps, imported candy, birthday balloons, and novelty coffee mugs under one bewildering roof. You are not building an audience. You are stocking shelves. Your vanity insists that the world needs one more opinion. The world politely walks past your front window.

    Eventually, The Wrinkled Prune closes.

    Does this mean we should silence ourselves? Stop writing? Abandon every attempt to contribute?

    Not at all.

    Life unfolds in seasons. There are years when your voice resonates widely and years when almost no one hears it. Neither condition should define your worth. During quieter seasons, remain curious. Read deeply. Listen carefully. Accumulate wisdom rather than followers. If, in time, you discover something genuinely worth saying that improves another person’s life, speak. If not, there is dignity in remaining silent.

    Just don’t open The Wrinkled Prune.

  • The Blurred Line Between Mental Illness and Evil (college essay prompt)

    The Blurred Line Between Mental Illness and Evil (college essay prompt)

    When people encounter shocking acts of cruelty, manipulation, or obsessive behavior, they often reach for two explanations. One explanation is psychological: the person must be mentally ill. The other explanation is moral: the person is evil. These explanations offer a kind of comfort because they simplify the problem. If destructive behavior is the result of mental illness, it can be understood through psychology and possibly treated. If the behavior is evil, it can be condemned and punished. However, many real-life cases resist these simple categories. Some individuals appear both irrational and calculating at the same time. Their actions may show signs of psychological instability while also involving deliberate choices that harm others.

    The documentaries The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish explore this unsettling territory. In both films, individuals behave in ways that disturb viewers because their actions seem both obsessive and intentional. Conflicts escalate beyond reason. Deception and manipulation play central roles. At the same time, the people involved often feel deeply wronged, isolated, or misunderstood. Their sense of grievance becomes a powerful narrative that justifies their behavior in their own minds. As the stories unfold, viewers are left asking a difficult question: Are these individuals primarily suffering from mental illness, or are they morally responsible for destructive actions that reveal something darker about human nature?

    These documentaries also highlight the role of loneliness, resentment, and social alienation. Individuals who feel rejected or humiliated may develop a deep sense of grievance toward others. Without meaningful relationships or healthy outlets for frustration, those grievances can intensify over time. Emotional pain can slowly transform into anger, suspicion, and obsession. In some cases, people begin to see themselves as victims of a hostile world. When this happens, harmful behavior may feel justified to them—even when it appears shocking or cruel to outsiders.

    At the same time, manipulation and deception complicate the psychological explanation. In High School Catfish, elaborate lies and fabricated identities are used to control and emotionally manipulate others. In The Perfect Neighbor, conflicts escalate through a pattern of hostility and retaliation. These behaviors often appear strategic rather than purely irrational. This raises an important question: when someone carefully constructs deception or escalates conflict, does that suggest deliberate moral wrongdoing rather than mental illness? Or can manipulation itself be a symptom of deeper psychological disturbance, such as narcissism, obsession, or a need for validation?

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay that explores the blurred line between mental illness and evil as it appears in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish. Your essay should develop a clear thesis that explains how these documentaries challenge the simple distinction between psychological disturbance and moral responsibility.

    Your introduction must include a thesis with mapping components. This means your thesis should clearly state your main argument and identify the key reasons that will organize your body paragraphs.

    Example thesis with mapping:

    The disturbing behavior portrayed in The Perfect Neighbor and High School Catfish demonstrates that the boundary between mental illness and evil is often blurred because intense loneliness can distort perception, personal grievances can justify cruelty, and deliberate manipulation allows individuals to transform emotional pain into calculated harm.

    In this example, the mapping components are:

    ● loneliness and social isolation

    ● grievance and resentment

    ● manipulation and deception

    Each of these would become a body paragraph in the essay.

    Your essay should include the following elements:

    • A clear thesis with mapping components
    • Analysis of both documentaries
    • Specific examples from the films that support your argument
    • A counterargument that challenges your thesis
    • A rebuttal defending your position
    • A concluding paragraph that reflects on what these cases reveal about human behavior and modern society

    Possible directions for your argument include:

    • destructive behavior may emerge from both psychological disturbance and moral choice
    • loneliness and grievance can transform emotional pain into cruelty
    • manipulation and deception suggest deliberate moral responsibility
    • society sometimes labels disturbing behavior as mental illness in order to avoid confronting the reality of evil
    • disturbing actions may result from a complex mixture of psychological vulnerability, social isolation, and moral failure

    Your goal is not simply to summarize the documentaries but to analyze what they reveal about the complicated relationship between mental illness, moral responsibility, and destructive human behavior. In your conclusion, reflect on what these stories suggest about how society should understand and respond to actions that appear both psychologically disturbed and morally troubling.

    Helpful Definition: “The Hero Delusion.”

    It’s the phenomenon in which people commit harmful acts while believing they are the protagonist in a moral drama. Both documentaries actually illustrate that pattern remarkably well.

    Personal Engagement Building Block 3

    For your first paragraph, write a 200-300-word profile of someone you know—or a friend of a friend—whose behavior could reasonably be described as morally troubling, destructive, or reprehensible. Begin by vividly describing the person’s actions and their impact on others. While it may be tempting to condemn the behavior outright, the purpose of this paragraph is not simply to judge the individual but to explore the difficulty of explaining why they behave as they do.

    As you develop the profile, consider competing interpretations of the person’s conduct. Some observers might view the individual as fundamentally immoral or “evil,” arguing that their actions reflect selfishness, cruelty, or a conscious disregard for others. Others might suggest that the behavior is rooted in psychological disorders, trauma, personality pathology, or mental illness. Use specific details to illustrate why the person’s actions resist simple explanations and raise difficult questions about moral responsibility, free will, and human behavior.

    Your paragraph should ultimately establish the central tension of your essay: whether certain forms of harmful behavior are better understood as evidence of moral corruption, psychological dysfunction, or some combination of both. The goal is not to resolve the debate but to introduce a complex case that invites further analysis.

    Argumentative Engagement Building Block 3

    Write two paragraphs: a thesis paragraph and a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.

    Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

    Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should address a legitimate objection to your thesis. Begin by clearly and fairly explaining a viewpoint that challenges your argument. Demonstrate why thoughtful readers might disagree with your position and how their concerns complicate your claim. After presenting the counterargument, write a rebuttal that responds to those objections. A strong rebuttal may concede valid points made by the opposing side while demonstrating that, on balance, your argument remains more persuasive. It may also alleviate concerns by clarifying misconceptions, introducing additional evidence, or identifying important information that the opposing side overlooks. The goal is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints but to engage them thoughtfully and strengthen your overall argument. Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should be between 200 and 250 words.

  • The Go-Home Heat of Ordinary Life

    The Go-Home Heat of Ordinary Life

    Around seven this evening, I found myself in Target performing the small rituals of domestic survival. I drifted first to produce, where I stood contemplating six-packs of kiwis—those fuzzy, unglamorous orbs that look like they were designed by a committee that feared both beauty and commitment.

    To my left stood a blonde woman in black athletic tights, late thirties, hair cinched back by a black headband. Her eyes were ringed with the faint bruising of fatigue or life—or both. When she saw me reach for the kiwis, her face brightened with the sudden, evangelical urgency of someone who has found a truth and is no longer capable of keeping it to herself.

    “Have you ever bought the golden ones?”

    I nodded, already sensing the sermon.

    “I love those because you can eat the skin.”

    “I can do without the skin,” I said, hoping to signal that my relationship with fruit had boundaries.

    She leaned in, undeterred. “Don’t skip that part. That’s where you’re getting all your antioxidants, folate, vitamin E, and fiber.”

    She delivered this litany with the confidence of someone who had recently completed a deep dive into the internet’s temple of wellness influencers and emerged fluent in their catechism.

    “I’m a true believer in the kiwi,” I said, offering a diplomatic half-truth in the hopes of ending the exchange.

    It did not end the exchange.

    She urged me to seek out the golden kiwis and to consume them whole, skin and all, as though salvation itself depended on my willingness to chew through fuzz. I smiled, nodded, and executed a tactical retreat.

    She struck me as a fundamentally decent person, but I recognized the type. I’ve met her before in various incarnations: the recently converted, the self-reinvented, the earnest disciple of a new regimen. Somewhere in her recent past, there had likely been a fracture—addiction, heartbreak, loneliness—and now she clung to nutrition and fitness as both shield and scripture. Her enthusiasm, admirable in theory, had exceeded her social boundaries. 

    Five minutes later, we encountered each other again in the granola aisle, approaching from opposite directions like two diplomats from uneasy nations. Our carts collided in that narrow space, and she immediately yielded.

    “You can go first.”

    The earlier fervor had drained from her. In its place was a kind of tentative humility, as though she had replayed the kiwi lecture in her mind and found it excessive. She seemed smaller now, slightly folded into herself, her previous confidence replaced by a quiet, almost visible self-consciousness.

    I sensed embarrassment, perhaps even shame—not because she had said anything offensive, but because she had revealed too much of herself too quickly. Now she was attempting restraint, but the adjustment hadn’t taken. The performance read not as composed but as deflated.

    The poor woman was unraveling in real time, her emotional weather shifting faster than she could dress for it.

    “No worries,” I said, and moved past her.

    Later, at home, I found myself thinking about the kiwi evangelist with more sympathy than irritation. I recognized the impulse. I know what it feels like to become intoxicated by an idea and immediately want to share it with anyone within earshot. I have been that person—too eager, too talkative, too quick to mistake oversharing for connection. Only later does the embarrassment arrive, that slow realization that enthusiasm, when stripped of self-awareness, can become its own form of social aggression.

    People rarely reward that kind of personality. In professional wrestling, every story revolves around two archetypes: the Babyface, the hero who earns the audience’s affection, and the Heel, the villain who earns its contempt. Some Heels possess charisma so magnetic that people love hating them. They generate what wrestling insiders call real heat. Their arrogance, cruelty, and swagger become irresistible entertainment. In sports broadcasting, Howard Cosell was the apotheosis of this phenomenon. He irritated millions with such magnificent consistency that irritation itself became addictive. America tuned in partly to watch the games and partly to watch Cosell be Cosell.

    But there is a far more unfortunate kind of Heel. He isn’t fascinating enough to hate. He merely occupies oxygen. His habits are tedious, his mannerisms grating, his conversation a slow-acting sedative. Wrestling has a name for this, too: go-home heat. The audience doesn’t boo because the villain has done his job brilliantly. They boo because they want him off the screen. They aren’t emotionally invested. They’re simply exhausted.

    Sometimes I wonder whether our brains instinctively divide humanity into Babyfaces and Heels. If so, most of us who become Heels don’t achieve the glamorous status of generating real heat. We generate go-home heat. We become the person whose presence subtly shortens conversations, whose invitations quietly stop arriving, whose absence is greeted not with grief but with relief.

    I’ve felt that kind of heat more than once. The cruelest version isn’t public humiliation; it’s private disappearance. A friend stops calling. Invitations evaporate. Conversations become obligations. You realize you’ve crossed an invisible line from Babyface to Heel, not because anyone announced it, but because the emotional temperature in the room has changed. You can feel the polite distance settling in like cold fog. At that point, dignity requires only one response. You respect the boundary. You gather your things. You go home.

    Marriage provides one of the purest laboratories for go-home heat. I’ve known more than a few husbands whose wives finally reached the end of their patience and, with varying degrees of diplomacy, informed them that the show had been canceled. The message was always some variation of the same theme: I’ve grown up. You haven’t. Life with you has become lonelier than life without you. In the early days of courtship, these men were Babyfaces. They possessed charm, humor, ambition, and just enough mystery to generate what wrestling fans call pop—the roar of approval when the hero bursts through the curtain. But pop has a shelf life. If the hero never develops beyond his opening act, applause curdles into indifference. The jokes become stale. The promises expire. Eventually the audience stops cheering and starts looking toward the exit. Divorce, in many cases, is simply the marriage announcing that the Babyface has become the Heel.

    I recently watched a far less consequential but equally revealing Heel performance at Trader Joe’s.

    It was a quiet Saturday morning. About fifteen minutes into my shopping, I was comparing pasta sauces beside two sisters in their sixties, both sporting jet-black hair and the alert posture of women who had spent decades detecting trouble before it fully arrived. Then trouble arrived.

    A disturbance erupted in the frozen-food aisle.

    At first I assumed it was the familiar soundtrack of retail life—employees exchanging sarcastic insults, one playing the Babyface, the other the Heel, everyone secretly enjoying the performance. That illusion lasted perhaps three seconds. The voices hardened. The volume climbed. This wasn’t banter. This was a genuine kerfuffle, the kind baseball announcers once used to describe a bench-clearing brawl after someone wore a ninety-five-mile-per-hour fastball in the ribs.

    The dialogue quickly settled into the hypnotic repetition of an absurdist play.

    “Stop coughing on the food.”

    “Mind your own business.”

    Again.

    “Stop coughing on the food.”

    “Mind your own business.”

    The sisters and I exchanged the universal glance of strangers silently agreeing that civilization had taken an unexpected coffee break. Around us, employees gathered in nervous little clusters like prairie dogs emerging from their burrows to determine whether the predator had moved on.

    I never saw the alleged cougher. He remained an unseen villain, a phantom whose crimes could no longer be verified. But I did meet his prosecutor.

    He stormed into our aisle still simmering with indignation, muttering fragments of his closing argument to no one in particular. He was a bodybuilder in his late twenties with the unmistakable lat-spread gait of a man who had spent so much time widening his back that walking normally had become optional. He carried a grocery bag in each hand as though they were ceremonial dumbbells. Gray sweatpants. Turquoise T-shirt bearing the single word STRONG, just in case anyone had mistaken him for an accountant.

    The shirt was drenched with sweat, suggesting he’d recently emerged from the nearby UFC gym and hadn’t yet made the psychological transition from gladiator to grocery shopper.

    His expression attempted righteous indignation, but something betrayed him.

    He looked around.

    No one was applauding.

    No one admired his courage.

    No one seemed grateful that justice had been served in aisle seven.

    Instead, every face wore the same expression: Please remove this man from the premises.

    The go-home heat was overwhelming.

    He had mistaken confrontation for leadership, volume for authority, and muscles for moral credibility. Whatever point he believed he was making had been eclipsed by the spectacle of his performance. The entire store had unconsciously promoted him from self-appointed hero to official nuisance.

    For just a second, I caught something almost touching flicker across his face. It was the expression of a balloon discovering a pin. His certainty leaked away. Chagrin briefly appeared before pride hurried back to cover it.

    As for me, I reverted to one of humanity’s oldest survival instincts.

    I became wallpaper.

    I examined jars of marinara with scholarly intensity, refusing to make eye contact. The last thing I wanted was to be drafted into another man’s private morality play.

    A few minutes later, I spotted him again while checking out.

    He stood two lanes away.

    The entire store seemed aware of him.

    People stole glances over shopping carts. Conversations paused. The emotional climate had shifted. If Trader Joe’s had permitted audience participation, I suspect candy-bar wrappers, reusable shopping bags, and overripe bananas might have sailed gracefully through the air.

    He knew.

    His eyes darted around the room. He tucked his chin toward his chest, rounded his shoulders, and attempted the oldest disappearing act known to embarrassed human beings: becoming physically smaller. Unfortunately, shame rarely makes anyone less conspicuous. It merely signals to the audience that the verdict has already been rendered.

    The whispers began.

    “What a jerk.”

    “One guy can ruin the whole atmosphere.”

    “He really overplayed his hand.”

    “That guy watches way too many Bro videos.”

    He hurried out of the store with the defeated posture of a politician leaving the courthouse after an indictment, squeezed his improbable physique into a modest Honda Civic, and disappeared into traffic.

    Go-home heat is a cruel force, but perhaps it serves an evolutionary purpose. Every society needs mechanisms for enforcing its unwritten rules. Sometimes applause rewards admirable behavior. Sometimes boos remind us where the boundaries lie. Like every weapon, however, go-home heat demands restraint. Used wisely, it protects a community’s moral norms. Used recklessly, it becomes little more than collective bullying disguised as virtue.

  • The Performance Trap: Online Identity, Narcissism, and the Collapse of the Real Self (college essay prompt)

    The Performance Trap: Online Identity, Narcissism, and the Collapse of the Real Self (college essay prompt)

    In the Netflix documentary The Crash and the Black Mirror episode “Joan Is Awful,” audiences witness characters whose lives become consumed by spectacle, performance, surveillance, and the relentless pressure of online visibility. While the two works differ in genre—one a real-life tragedy and the other a satirical dystopian drama—both raise disturbing questions about how modern digital culture reshapes identity, distorts reality, and erodes the boundary between authentic selfhood and online performance.

    In The Crash, the documentary suggests that Mackenzie Shirilla’s compulsive online self-curation reflected a deeper psychological unraveling in which image management, attention-seeking, and social media validation became inseparable from her sense of identity. Meanwhile, in “Joan Is Awful,” Joan discovers that her life has been transformed into a grotesque entertainment product streamed to millions of viewers, forcing her to confront the horrifying possibility that her real self has become secondary to a digitally manufactured persona designed for mass consumption. In both works, online visibility functions less as a tool for communication and more as a vortex that pulls individuals toward narcissism, performative behavior, emotional instability, and estrangement from reality itself.

    Write a 1,200-word argumentative essay in which you compare The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” to examine the claim that maintaining a constant online presence can suck people into a vortex of unhinged narcissism and madness that makes them unrecognizable from their authentic selves.

    Your essay should analyze how both works depict:

    ● the transformation of identity into performance;

    ● the addictive pursuit of attention, relevance, and validation;

    ● the psychological consequences of constant self-curation and surveillance;

    ● the collapse of the boundary between private life and public spectacle;

    ● and the dangers of confusing online visibility with genuine human worth.

    You should also address the broader cultural implications of these works. What do these texts suggest about the modern relationship between technology and identity? Do social media platforms merely reveal narcissism already present in human nature, or do they actively manufacture and intensify it? At what point does self-expression become self-erasure?

    A strong essay will move beyond summary and develop a clear argumentative thesis that makes an original claim about the psychological and cultural dangers presented in both works. Your thesis should be supported by detailed analysis of scenes, dialogue, imagery, characterization, and thematic parallels between the documentary and the episode.

    You must include:

    ● a clear and debatable thesis;

    ● detailed comparison of both works;

    ● at least one counterargument and rebuttal;

    ● analysis of specific scenes and examples;

    ● and thoughtful commentary about the relationship between technology, identity, and modern culture.

    Possible directions for argument include:

    ● Social media transforms ordinary narcissism into pathological self-obsession.

    ● Constant online performance erodes authentic identity and emotional stability.

    ● Digital culture rewards outrage, exhibitionism, and emotional extremity.

    ● Online validation creates a dopamine-driven cycle that destabilizes mental health.

    ● Surveillance culture turns human beings into entertainment products.

    ● The internet encourages people to construct marketable personas rather than genuine selves.

    You may agree, disagree, or complicate the prompt’s central argument, but your essay must directly engage the idea that online self-curation can psychologically deform individuals and distance them from reality.

    Requirements:

    ● Approximately 1,200 words

    ● MLA format

    ● Clear introduction, body paragraphs, counterargument-rebuttal section, and conclusion

    ● Use evidence from both The Crash and “Joan Is Awful”

    ● Include a Works Cited page

    The strongest essays will avoid simplistic “technology bad” arguments and instead explore the more unsettling possibility that modern digital culture rewards the most performative, narcissistic, and emotionally unstable versions of ourselves until the performance eventually consumes the person behind it.

    Personal Building Block 2

    For your first body paragraph, write a vivid profile of someone you know—or a friend of a friend—whose constant online presence has placed significant strain on their mental and emotional well-being. Describe how this person became absorbed in documenting, sharing, and curating nearly every aspect of their life for an online audience. How much time do they spend on social media? What kinds of content do they post, and what motivates them to seek attention, approval, or validation online?

    Analyze how this behavior has affected other areas of their life, including school, work, family relationships, friendships, or romantic relationships. Have they experienced anxiety, insecurity, loneliness, or an unhealthy dependence on likes, comments, and online engagement? Did they eventually recognize the negative effects of their behavior and take steps to change, or do they remain trapped in the cycle of constant self-presentation and digital validation?

    Your profile should include vivid details that capture the person’s personality, habits, and social environment. More importantly, it should illustrate how algorithm-driven platforms can influence behavior by rewarding attention-seeking, emotional intensity, and perpetual self-disclosure. Use the individual’s experience to show how a life increasingly organized around online performance can distort identity, damage relationships, and contribute to feelings of unhappiness, alienation, or loss of self. Your paragraph should be between 200 and 300 words.

    Argumentative Building Block 2

    You will turn in two paragraphs, your thesis and conclusion. 

    Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

    Your conclusion paragraph should move beyond the specific events of The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” to explore the broader cultural significance of your comparison. What do these texts reveal about the relationship between technology, identity, and human behavior in the digital age? Do social media platforms merely expose narcissistic tendencies that have always existed, or do they actively encourage and amplify them? At what point does self-expression cease to be authentic and become a performance shaped by algorithms, audiences, and the pursuit of attention? Consider whether modern technology has blurred the distinction between reality and representation to such an extent that people increasingly struggle to distinguish genuine experiences from curated personas. A strong conclusion should not simply summarize your argument but explain why it matters. Ultimately, your paragraph should demonstrate how The Crash and “Joan Is Awful” illuminate larger concerns about identity, authenticity, technology, and the future of human relationships in a world increasingly shaped by digital platforms. Your conclusion should be approximately 150 words.

  • The Addictive Power of Sports Betting (college essay prompt)

    The Addictive Power of Sports Betting (college essay prompt)

    Length

    1,200 words minimum

    Sources

    At least 4 credible sources

    Assignment

    Sports betting has become one of the fastest-growing industries in American culture. Once confined largely to casinos and illegal bookmakers, gambling is now integrated into professional sports broadcasts, podcasts, social media feeds, smartphone apps, and influencer culture. Millions of young men can place bets within seconds while receiving a constant stream of betting advice, predictions, and promotional offers.

    Many defenders argue that sports betting is simply another form of entertainment. Most participants gamble casually without developing serious problems. However, critics argue that the current sports-betting ecosystem possesses an unprecedented ability to exploit psychological vulnerabilities, especially among young men struggling with loneliness, identity, status anxiety, and the search for belonging.

    For this essay, analyze the causes of sports betting’s addictive power. Your goal is not merely to describe gambling addiction but to explain why sports betting has become so psychologically compelling in contemporary culture.

    In your analysis, consider some of the following questions:

    • How do sports-betting apps use psychological rewards, dopamine stimulation, and intermittent reinforcement to encourage repeated gambling?
    • Why might young men be particularly susceptible to sports-betting culture?
    • How does sports betting appeal to desires for competition, mastery, expertise, status, and recognition?
    • What role do loneliness and declining social connection play in the appeal of betting communities, podcasts, influencers, and online group chats?
    • How do social media algorithms amplify gambling content and normalize sports betting?
    • In what ways has sports betting become intertwined with broader forms of masculine performance and identity?
    • How do sports leagues, media companies, influencers, and betting companies contribute to the normalization of gambling?
    • To what extent does sports betting function as a substitute for older sources of meaning, community, achievement, and belonging?

    Your paper should move beyond the simplistic claim that gambling is addictive because people want money. Instead, investigate the deeper psychological, social, technological, and cultural forces that make sports betting attractive to millions of people.

    Counterargument Requirement

    Address the argument that sports betting is merely a harmless form of entertainment and that most participants gamble responsibly without developing addictive behaviors.

    After presenting this counterargument, explain why critics remain concerned about the current sports-betting ecosystem. Consider whether the scale, accessibility, sophistication, and constant availability of modern betting platforms create risks that differ from traditional forms of gambling.

    Suggested Organizational Structure

    Introduction

    • Introduce the rise of sports betting.
    • Present your thesis explaining why sports betting has become so addictive.

    Body Section 1: Psychological Factors

    • Dopamine, reward systems, risk-taking, intermittent reinforcement, and behavioral psychology.

    Body Section 2: Social and Cultural Factors

    • Loneliness, declining community, online identity, status-seeking, and belonging.

    Body Section 3: Technology and Media

    • Smartphones, social media algorithms, influencer culture, betting apps, and sports broadcasting.

    Body Section 4: Counterargument and Rebuttal

    • Address the claim that sports betting is harmless entertainment.
    • Explain why critics believe modern sports betting presents unique dangers.

    Conclusion

    • Evaluate whether the addictive power of sports betting is primarily financial, psychological, cultural, technological, or some combination of these factors.

    Sample Thesis Statements

    Thesis 1
    Sports betting has become highly addictive because it combines powerful psychological reward mechanisms with social media algorithms, digital convenience, and young men’s desire for status, belonging, and identity.

    Thesis 2
    While sports betting appears to be a harmless form of entertainment, its addictive power stems from its ability to transform loneliness, masculine insecurity, and risk-taking impulses into a profitable digital marketplace.

    Thesis 3
    The rapid growth of sports betting reflects more than a desire for money; it reveals how technology, social isolation, and modern identity formation have created ideal conditions for gambling addiction among young men.

    ***

    Personal Engagement Building Block 1

    For your first body paragraph, present a personal account that explores the psychological appeal of sports betting, including its attractions, risks, and financial consequences. Interview someone who regularly engages in sports betting and use the interview as the foundation of your paragraph. How did this person first become interested in sports betting? How much time and attention does it consume? How has it affected their finances, productivity, relationships, or emotional well-being? Do they have regrets about their gambling habits, or do they view sports betting as harmless entertainment? Have they ever worried that it was becoming addictive or taking control of their behavior? Do they hope to continue betting indefinitely, cut back, or quit altogether?

    Your paragraph should move beyond simple description and provide insight into the person’s motivations, habits, and mindset. Include vivid details that help readers understand the individual’s personality, social environment, and relationship with sports betting. The goal is to humanize the issue by showing how sports betting functions in the life of a real person. Your paragraph should be between 200 and 300 words.

    Argumentative Engagement Building Block 1

    Write two paragraphs: a thesis paragraph and a counterargument-rebuttal paragraph.

    Your thesis paragraph should present a clear, arguable, and defensible claim that answers the central question of your essay. The paragraph should not merely announce a topic but establish a position that reasonable people could debate. After stating your thesis, include mapping components that identify the major points your body paragraphs will use to support your argument. These mapping components should provide readers with a clear roadmap of your essay’s structure and reasoning. Your thesis paragraph should be approximately 200 words.

    Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should address a legitimate objection to your thesis. Begin by clearly and fairly explaining a viewpoint that challenges your argument. Demonstrate why thoughtful readers might disagree with your position and how their concerns complicate your claim. After presenting the counterargument, write a rebuttal that responds to those objections. A strong rebuttal may concede valid points made by the opposing side while demonstrating that, on balance, your argument remains more persuasive. It may also alleviate concerns by clarifying misconceptions, introducing additional evidence, or identifying important information that the opposing side overlooks. The goal is not to dismiss opposing viewpoints but to engage them thoughtfully and strengthen your overall argument. Your counterargument-rebuttal paragraph should be between 200 and 250 words.

  • Why Communities Prefer Scapegoats to Self-Examination (college essay prompt)

    Why Communities Prefer Scapegoats to Self-Examination (college essay prompt)

    Sources

    Use Weapons, Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery,” and at least two outside sources.

    Length

    1,200 words minimum

    Assignment

    Both Weapons and Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” depict communities confronted by fear, uncertainty, and social dysfunction. In both works, people search for explanations when confronted with suffering. Yet rather than critically examine themselves, their values, or the systems they inhabit, they often seek simpler solutions: preserving familiar assumptions, defending established customs, and identifying convenient targets for blame.

    As a result, innocent individuals become scapegoats while deeper problems remain unresolved.

    At the center of both works are characters who appear to reinforce the beliefs and behaviors of their communities. Old Man Warner in “The Lottery” fiercely defends tradition, while Aunt Gladys in Weapons exercises influence through manipulation, vanity, and control. However, neither character acts alone. Their power depends upon a community willing to accept their assumptions and participate in harmful social rituals.

    In a well-developed essay, analyze how Weapons and “The Lottery” explore the relationship between conformity, scapegoating, and self-deception. Consider whether both works suggest that communities often prefer familiar lies to uncomfortable truths. Ultimately, evaluate what these works reveal about the human tendency to preserve harmful systems rather than confront the deeper causes of social problems.

    Questions for Consideration

    You do not need to answer every question, but they may help guide your analysis:

    • Why do communities often seek scapegoats during periods of fear or uncertainty?
    • What psychological comfort do traditions and social rituals provide?
    • When does tradition become an obstacle to justice or truth?
    • How do ordinary people become complicit in harmful systems?
    • What roles do Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys play in sustaining the beliefs of their communities?
    • How do fear, tribal loyalty, and groupthink influence decision-making?
    • What do both works suggest about the dangers of refusing self-examination?
    • Why are innocent people often sacrificed to preserve social stability?

    Counterargument Requirement

    Some readers might argue that traditions, social norms, and communal rituals are necessary because they provide stability, identity, and social cohesion. Without shared customs, communities can become fragmented and directionless.

    Address this argument.

    Then evaluate how Weapons and “The Lottery” distinguish between traditions that strengthen communities and traditions that perpetuate injustice, cruelty, or self-deception.

    Sample Thesis Statements

    Thesis 1
    Although Weapons and “The Lottery” take place in very different settings, both argue that communities often protect familiar beliefs and social rituals even when those practices produce injustice and suffering.

    Thesis 2
    Both works suggest that scapegoating is attractive because it allows communities to avoid confronting deeper problems within themselves.

    Thesis 3
    Through their portrayals of conformity, fear, and collective self-deception, Weapons and “The Lottery” reveal that the greatest threat to a community is often its unwillingness to examine its own assumptions.

    Thesis 4
    Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys are influential not because they possess 

    Why Weapons and “The Lottery” Work So Well

    Both works are fundamentally about:

    • Collective guilt
    • Scapegoating
    • Social conformity
    • Moral cowardice
    • Communities protecting themselves from self-examination
    • The weaponization of consensus

    In both stories, the community desperately wants an explanation for its suffering.

    The explanation must:

    • Be simple.
    • Be emotionally satisfying.
    • Preserve the group’s self-image.

    The real enemy is not a monster.

    The real enemy is a community’s refusal to confront itself.

    That is exactly why Old Man Warner and Aunt Gladys feel comparable. Both are defenders of a diseased social order. They differ in personality, but they perform similar functions.

    What Makes the Comparison Rich

    One of the most interesting comparisons is that both works ask:

    What happens when a community becomes more invested in maintaining a narrative than discovering the truth?

    That question can sustain an entire essay.

    In fact, I think the strongest thesis isn’t about tradition.

    It’s about narrative preservation.

    Both communities preserve comforting narratives even when those narratives require innocent people to suffer.

  • The Gospel of the Golden Kiwi

    The Gospel of the Golden Kiwi

    Around seven this evening, I found myself in Target performing the small rituals of domestic survival. I drifted first to produce, where I stood contemplating six-packs of kiwis—those fuzzy, unglamorous orbs that look like they were designed by a committee that feared both beauty and commitment.

    To my left stood a blonde woman in black athletic tights, late thirties, hair cinched back by a black headband. Her eyes were ringed with the faint bruising of fatigue or life—or both. When she saw me reach for the kiwis, her face brightened with the sudden, evangelical urgency of someone who has found a truth and is no longer capable of keeping it to herself.

    “Have you ever bought the golden ones?”

    I nodded, already sensing the sermon.

    “I love those because you can eat the skin.”

    “I can do without the skin,” I said, hoping to signal that my relationship with fruit had boundaries.

    She leaned in, undeterred. “Don’t skip that part. That’s where you’re getting all your antioxidants, folate, vitamin E, and fiber.”

    She delivered this litany with the confidence of someone who had recently completed a deep dive into the internet’s temple of wellness influencers and emerged fluent in their catechism.

    “I’m a true believer in the kiwi,” I said, offering a diplomatic half-truth in the hopes of ending the exchange.

    It did not end the exchange.

    She urged me to seek out the golden kiwis and to consume them whole, skin and all, as though salvation itself depended on my willingness to chew through fuzz. I smiled, nodded, and executed a tactical retreat.

    She struck me as a fundamentally decent person, but I recognized the type. I’ve met her before in various incarnations: the recently converted, the self-reinvented, the earnest disciple of a new regimen. Somewhere in her recent past, there had likely been a fracture—addiction, heartbreak, loneliness—and now she clung to nutrition and fitness as both shield and scripture. Her enthusiasm, admirable in theory, had outrun her social calibration.

    Five minutes later, we encountered each other again in the granola aisle, approaching from opposite directions like two diplomats from uneasy nations. Our carts collided in that narrow space, and she immediately yielded.

    “You can go first.”

    The earlier fervor had drained from her. In its place was a kind of tentative humility, as though she had replayed the kiwi lecture in her mind and found it excessive. She seemed smaller now, slightly folded into herself, her previous confidence replaced by a quiet, almost visible self-consciousness.

    I sensed embarrassment, perhaps even shame—not because she had said anything offensive, but because she had revealed too much of herself too quickly. Now she was attempting restraint, but the adjustment hadn’t taken. The performance read not as composed but as deflated.

    The poor woman was unraveling in real time, her emotional weather shifting faster than she could dress for it.

    “No worries,” I said, and moved past her.

    Later, at home, I found myself thinking about her with sympathy. I know that impulse—the sudden surge of enthusiasm that spills over onto strangers, the desire to connect that arrives without a proper governor. I’ve been that person, pressing too hard, talking too much, revealing too quickly, only to retreat later into a private audit of one’s own excess.

    If I ever find myself eating golden kiwis, skin and all, I suspect I’ll pause for a moment and offer a small, private prayer for her—for whatever she’s trying to fix, and for the courage it takes to try fixing it in public.

  • Misogyny or Masculine Displacement? The Fight to Explain Gender Conflict (a college essay prompt)

    Misogyny or Masculine Displacement? The Fight to Explain Gender Conflict (a college essay prompt)

    Using Helen Lewis’ essay “The Men Who Don’t Want Women to Be Quiet” and Helen Andrews’ essay “The Great Feminization” as your central texts, write a 1,200-word argumentative essay analyzing the conflicting narratives each author presents about gender, power, communication, and modern society. Your essay should examine how Lewis and Andrews offer sharply different interpretations of the changing relationship between men and women in contemporary culture and argue which writer presents the more persuasive argument.

    In “The Men Who Don’t Want Women to Be Quiet,” Helen Lewis argues that many online male personalities and communities resent women who possess public voices, authority, independence, or intellectual influence. Lewis examines how social media, influencer culture, and reactionary online movements weaponize misogyny, harassment, and humiliation against outspoken women. She suggests that many men experience female autonomy and public visibility as threats to traditional gender hierarchies and male identity.

    In “The Great Feminization,” Helen Andrews argues that modern institutions increasingly reward traits culturally associated with women—emotional sensitivity, verbal fluency, caution, bureaucratic cooperation, therapeutic language, and social conformity—while marginalizing traits traditionally associated with men such as aggression, risk-taking, stoicism, competitiveness, and physicality. Andrews contends that many men feel alienated in institutions shaped by what she sees as a feminized social order.

    As you develop your essay, analyze the competing narratives presented by Lewis and Andrews. To what extent do these writers fundamentally disagree about the causes of gender tension in modern society? Does Lewis present a convincing argument that misogyny and resentment toward female independence drive much of today’s online hostility toward women? Or does Andrews more persuasively argue that modern institutions have become hostile toward traditionally masculine traits, creating frustration and displacement among men?

    You should also consider the possibility that both writers identify legitimate social problems while emphasizing different causes, victims, and solutions. Are these essays truly contradictory, or do they describe different aspects of the same cultural crisis? Does modern society simultaneously produce hostility toward women and alienation among men? If so, how?

    As part of your argument, analyze the rhetorical strategies used by both writers. Consider how tone, examples, emotional appeals, cultural assumptions, historical references, and definitions of masculinity and femininity shape the persuasiveness of each essay. Which author provides stronger evidence, more nuanced reasoning, or a more convincing understanding of contemporary gender dynamics?

    You must include at least one counterargument and rebuttal. For example, you may consider whether Lewis overstates the influence of online misogyny or whether Andrews romanticizes traditional masculinity while overlooking its destructive aspects. You may also address whether both essays risk reducing men and women to broad psychological or cultural categories.

    As you conclude your essay, consider the larger implications of these conflicting narratives. What do these essays reveal about modern anxieties surrounding gender, identity, status, work, communication, and belonging? Why has the battle over masculinity and femininity become such a central cultural conflict in the digital age?

    Requirements:

    • 1,200 words minimum
    • MLA format
    • Use evidence from both essays
    • Include a clear thesis with mapping components
    • Include at least one counterargument and rebuttal
    • Analyze specific passages and examples rather than merely summarizing
    • Develop a focused argument about the competing narratives surrounding gender and modern culture