I was trying to post a comment on a friends blogspot with other moveable accounts (and they didn't work), so I reopened this one. To be honest - I forgot all about it. Early onset of dimensia? hehe. Just kidding. Of course I remember it now.
I started this blog when I first was getting into feminism HEAVIER. I think I've always called myself a feminist (since 15) - but I didn't spend much thought or analysis on it, until a couple of years ago. And I wasn't even radical yet.... I don't think anyway.
You'll find some ignorant things in here, and I'm sorry. I'm still cultivating things and since I wrote the last post in this blog - my views have been cultivated A LOT. I really believe that people REALLY start to change after 25 - that's the REAL coming of age, I think.
Anyways, going back to read some of these old entries was really fun. For one - there are things written in it that I actually disagree with now (like some of my language usage). So I wouldn't really bother trying to correct me on these issues - I'm very aware of them. But I'll let them stand because I'm very interested in my own progression. It's fun to watch.
I wrote a book once.... haha. I started it when I was 16 and finished it when I was like 21. When I went back to read the first part of the book, I was like, HOLY SHIT, this is SOOOOOO bad. I threw it away. But it's amazing how much we change, without ever really noticing...
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Saturday, January 17, 2009
One last thought for today:
Some women who dress provacotive are so self-important. If they totally dress with barely anything on and men don't give them the time of day - rather than admitting that MOST (intelligent) men aren't really all that attracted to that - they blame feminists for making men "wimps".
How can anyone be that self-important? Just because you dressed to get attention - doesn't mean you are entitled to it and the reality is that a lot of men think a woman who goes to the club half-naked is desparate. Desparation is NOT sexy - contrary to popular belief. When a guy approaches me and I get the desparate vibe from him, I'm totally disgusted. I have no reason to believe that men feel any different.
AND thats what a lot of women don't get. If you are half-naked and guys aren't jumping to talk to you - maybe there's a justifiable reason for it - not because they are wimps. I think that for a lot of men - if a woman gives it all up before he actually has sex with her, what's left? Especially if this woman isn't presenting any personality traits to further interest them. It's bad enough that women put pressure on each other to look a certain way but it just enrages me that women want to pressure men into liking it when they don't by calling them wimps.
Way to go for accountability!!! Lets just blame the men and the feminists, rather than analyzing our own actions!!!!
That would be like me blaming everyone else for my lack of friendships. The reality is that I'm quite shy and always have been and I blame myself, not everyone else. When will people realize cause and effect?
How can anyone be that self-important? Just because you dressed to get attention - doesn't mean you are entitled to it and the reality is that a lot of men think a woman who goes to the club half-naked is desparate. Desparation is NOT sexy - contrary to popular belief. When a guy approaches me and I get the desparate vibe from him, I'm totally disgusted. I have no reason to believe that men feel any different.
AND thats what a lot of women don't get. If you are half-naked and guys aren't jumping to talk to you - maybe there's a justifiable reason for it - not because they are wimps. I think that for a lot of men - if a woman gives it all up before he actually has sex with her, what's left? Especially if this woman isn't presenting any personality traits to further interest them. It's bad enough that women put pressure on each other to look a certain way but it just enrages me that women want to pressure men into liking it when they don't by calling them wimps.
Way to go for accountability!!! Lets just blame the men and the feminists, rather than analyzing our own actions!!!!
That would be like me blaming everyone else for my lack of friendships. The reality is that I'm quite shy and always have been and I blame myself, not everyone else. When will people realize cause and effect?
Did you hear? You have to be FAKE to be Feminine
http://microkiniblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/thongs-crop-tops-sexiness-and-feminism.html
Okay, so I came accross this blog and I was completely horrified. I definitely think that people who blog should have to get a license first because this article is complete CRAP. It is the most unintelligent blog I have read in a while.
So I'm going to pull up a few quotes and then analyze why I think this person made them.
She's got a point, you know. And let's talk seriously now about "castrating" men. Maybe this whole lecturing, pedantic, anti-sexual feministic ideal with the hardline feminists (or feminazis, as I think they should be called) did a lot more damage to relationships between men and women.
How does accepting women as they ARE castrate men (not how fake they can be)? The only men who feel threatened by women who are strong and are willing to not conform are men who are extremely insecure and usually very homophobic. The reality is that feminism makes it possible for men to express their feminine side without being called gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay but I'm so tired of people pointing fingers at people like that when a feminine guy isn't necessarily gay, just like some lesbians are really feminine. Shit, most of the feminine straight guys I know are the best fathers, treat their wives the best and lose the least interest in the bedroom with their wives or girlfriends. The most feminine guys I know, are actually the most real and the most down to earth. Why is that? Well I think it's because rather than setting their appearences to standards set by society and conforming - they take into life their own perspective and they are secure with themselves because they realize a lot of stereotypes and generalizations about feminine men are bunk. They are less critical about the women they date because they know how it feels to be treated like less of a man, simply because they prefer to sit with their legs crossed.
I haven't known a feminist that was against sex. That is also one of the most rediculous comments I have ever heard. There are a lot of women who express themselves as generically sexy who actually don't like sex or are sexually disfunctional. A lot of women who work in porn actually don't find pleasure in the act of having sex - they find more pleasure in their "fame" and the attention they get. For me - sex isn't about acting, it's about doing. I think that a lot of things and in around porn are actually anti-sexual. And porn sets up this standard that only brainwashed women and men would follow. I mention porn because I feel as though it has infiltrated popular culture and now, rather than women working on their brains, they seem to be working harder towards purchasing a new set of plastic boobs. Porn is anything BUT freedom of sexual expression. I mean, all porn is the same. Just like all women who express their sexuality via clothing typically dress the same. It's not freedom if people are cloning each other.
The only type of men who feel insecure about me not being about fashion and make-up are men who actually are insecure to begin with and are only looking for a sexy girl to have hanging off of their arm to show off to all of their friends to make them jealous. Any man who needs a make-up wearing, highHELL wearing, skirt wearing Girl is a man who isn't dating a girl for who she is but for how she looks and that can only be reduced to that man attempting to create a false illusion of his masculinity. Men who are really secure are not put off by women who are strong and who can think beyond cultural norms and fitting in.
YOU KNOW WHAT DOES CASTRATE MEN? The assumption most women make that they want a superficial girl. I think it is so messed up that women make these assumptions. ALL through highschool and college my female friends who were trendy would always pressure me into wearing make-up and "skanky" clothes (their word, not mine). They claimed that more guys would be interested in me and that I'd get more free drinks. THEY WERE WRONG. The times that I went to the bar in my usual hoodie and baggy pants - more guys talked to me and bought me drinks (I think too because if you don't come off as high maintenence - you become more appealing, no guy wants to date a girl that will expect a huge rock when they get married and lets be real about it - A LOT of men like some things being left to the imagination - it's much more tantalizing that way). One guy fell head over heels for me at the bar once (I didn't go home with him or anything - so it wasn't the good sex I'm able to provide). He picked me out of all the trendy girls at that bar and oddly enough - he was also trendy (which is why I was put off by him, I admit). The truth is - a lot of men still approached me at the bars and clubs. Not all men are into the plastic, generic MTV look.
In fact - when looking to be in a serious relationship - most men are going to turn to a girl like me - over the girl with her ass cheeks hanging out. There is no mystery to that either. Obviously if a girl has to go to the club in a mini skirt that leaves nothing to the imagination, she's probably looking for attention from anyone she can get it from (that includes the sneers she might get from other women - she she can claim they are jealous - even though most of them just think it's trashy). I've noticed that the more generically sexy a woman dressed (and I mean raunchy too) the more she's obsessed with getting attention from every man she can. Many women in my life have proved this over and over again. I know it's a stereotype and I realize that one size doesn't fit all but in general, this is a pretty easy equation to follow. I can tell by how a woman is dressed whether she's attention obsessed and needs to be the center of attention all the time. I can tell instantly by how a woman behaves, what her intentions are with me or with my boyfriend.
The sad trick is that a lot of the women who do this - aren't even into having sex or can't have orgasms... Don't believe me? Well I've known some of them. By looking at these women - most guys (and girls) would think they were sexual divas, up for anything, down with going down but that is simply NOT always TRUE. A lot of women who dress scantily actually do not like sex and would prefer getting attention over actual sex. Just like most feminists are not sex-haters or opposed to the pleasure of actually having sex (although - just like in the superficial group, there are feminists who have issues with sex as well). EIther way - appearence/lables are not good indicators of whether or not a woman enjoys having sex.
One big problem is that a lot of women and men think that porn = sex. They think clothes = sex but the only thing that equals sex IS sex. You can't replace it with a 2 dimensional screen. You can't replace actual sex with sexy clothing. That doesn't even make sense. I can figure out the intelligence of the author of this blog because she clearly thinks that sexy clothing = sex. Because what Arial Levy is pointing out is the problems with this false sexual expression, she's not talking about how sex is undesireable and something women should avoid. There is NOTHING in her book or her discussions that even suggests this sentiment. And anyone who uses that argument against her is simply trying to deflect the truth.
And that's another thing - one of the things she quotes reads like this:
It has always been like this, and it always will be, because men's achilles heel is that they go to pieces when a woman drops her top. Old-style feminists never understood this. - Belle
Am I the only woman that sees how wrong this is on ALL levels? First of all, what makes this quote really ignorant is that it assumes 1. ALL men like women. 2. ALL men are into breasts. 3. The assumption that men are powerless around naked women.
It really bothers me that women think that their bodies have this kind of control and power(ick on all levels). I think that it is demasculating and insulting to the intelligence of men. If anything, views like this are castrating to men. The truth is - Not all men are pigs who think with their dicks before their minds. There are men who see a woman behaving like this for what it is - insecurity. When women feel the need to get approval from men all the time, they are insecure. I don't need approval from men all the time because I'm already proud of myself. I don't need the approval of others to be happy with myself - unlike mainstream American women and men. Women can argue against what I have just said all they want but I have male friends who make fun of make-up and plastic looking women. Sure, they might not do it around women who do wear make-up because they really don't want to offend people (like me) but they really do think how women behave and conform is rediculous and weak. The other thing is that women assume that if a man looks at them - they are automatically undressing them in their head and I think that's also demasculating. I'm not wanting every guy I look at - there are even times I'm making fun of them in my own head (like if he has his hat tilted to the side and is walking with a limp). I remember Tyra Banks once mentioned that guys always check out the girls with make-up on but what she doesn't realize is that a lot of men check out those girls because they know that those girls are more insecure and probably more willing to do things they don't want to do, for approval AND sometimes men look at women with caked on make-up and think they are superficial and are picking on them in their minds - as I do with the guy who isnt hurt but walks with a limp.
Men are great at working together; they are self-congratulatory and supportive. We are not. That is our true weakness, and feminism exemplifies this flaw - witness the countless factions, all fighting for different things, from sex-positive feminists, who believe nudity is OK, to third-wave feminists, who think eyeliner is misogynistic.
This quote is a HUGE cop-out. This is what women pull out of their bums when they are unwilling to confront gender standards (especially hetero ones). Instead of looking at their own hand in the cattiness - their attempts to look hotter than every other woman. Most old time feminists were all about nudity (for example - in Brattleboro VT - women in the 70's walked around shirtless until they made nudity legal) - I find it hilarious that this person thinks that if a feminist hates mini-skirts and eyeliner that they think nudity is wrong. Actually - the naked human body is natural and therefor - I'm not opposed to nudity. I think that if nudity were made legal - less women would feel the need to wear push-up bras and thongs that just look distasteful and uncomfortable and thus - very petty. I'm actually very self-congratulatory - much more than most women. Why is that? Because I accept myself as I am, rather than conforming to gender standards and calling them sex. I am self-congratulatory because I accept my flaws and call them beautiful rather than trying to cover them up and deceive everyone. I embrace myself as a woman AS I AM - not as how society expects me to be. THAT makes my motives completely selfish and self-congratulatory. I'm unwilling to harm myself for the acceptence of others and I don't care what other women tell me - that makes me a better woman, that makes me embrace TRUE FEMININITY.
But even if you wear naughty lingerie for you, for no other reason than it makes you feel good, that is reason enough to keep it on. True feminism should celebrate femininity, and make you feel wonderful to be born a woman.
Oh and it strikes again. AGAIN another stupid woman (Bell) arguing that sexy underwear is celebrating femininity. I wonder what women like this would celebrate if human beings were stripped of all clothing....Their saggy breasts? And my problem with this quote, isn't that they are telling women to be free to do what they want (which I agree with 100%) it's the type of example she chose... It wasn't "if women feel like embracing their feminity and it makes them happy to NOT wear make-up or thongs etc" - it was a positive agrument FOR wearing underwear (as if women in society need anymore permission - how about helpig the women who struggle AGAINST these standards, who need it much more) that society finds sexy (I honestly find nothing sexy about underwear that causes yeast infections, but that's just my opinion). Which is fine but it's this assumption that if a woman like me points out all the things wrong with every non-human thing women find "feminine" she is attempting to tell women what to and what not to do.
The reality is that Ariel Levy NEVER talks about how women can't wear make-up and be feminists - what she is purely doing is attempting to get women to think about it more and think more about what they are saying when they call lacy underwear feminine. WHY is that kind of underwear feminine and who decided? If that underwear never existed, no woman would decide, randomly to make it and call it "sexy." There is something in society that TOLD this woman it was sexy and I have a feeling it has everything to do with all of the advertisments/media that make women believe this falsity. This is the question she is only daring women to address.
The sad thing is that most women react the same way this blogger does. Rather than honestly reflecting about their behaviors and ways of life - they simply attack the person who is posing the question and getting them to really think about it. And I mean - I sort of understand how someone would feel that Ariel Levy is attacking everything about their life but that isn't really the case.
I think part of the problem is that women don't want to admit that half of the shit they do is superficial. That they aren't presenting themselves as they REALLY look. No women want to admit that by covering themselves up (via make-up), adorning themselves and distorting their bodies that they are actually, TRUELY and HONESTLY denouncing the true feminine.
Yes, it is! I've had some hardline feminists at work try to lecture me about the fact I wear thongs and microkinis on the beach - the same old, past their sell-by date, arguments about how I succumb to the chauvinistic ideal that sees women as sex objects and not as human beings. Of course, these hardline feminists haven't done a single thing to help a female colleague and protect her against discrimination of any kind.
That's the thing that really irritates me too about this blogger. She says that feminists have done nothing to help female colleagues against discrimination but what the HELL has SHE done? Other than reduce all feminists who see gender roles as bullshit to hairy, anti-sexual fatties (as she does in the quote below). Like seriously - this bimbo (sorry, this is out of anger at this point) is the one who isn't helping by simply saying fake = feminine. By telling women they have to be fake and provocative to be feminine - she is basically saying that you have to be ONE way in order to be feminine, that by not shaving, you are not feminine - even if many of your personality traits are more feminine (like crying when angry - rather than yelling). And that's the irritation I have for women like this - one size does not fit all in terms of what is feminine or in terms of what is masculine. People have differing opinions about this and clearly - she is the one who is closed minded - not Ariel Levy.
they're only good at being pedantic, sex-fearing, idiotic little dictators that also "happen" to be fat, unwashed, hairy and rude to everyone that has the misfortune of crossing their path with theirs.
And this girl thinks she's above the type of feminists she's complaining about!!! She thinks she's better when she doesn't even ATTEMPT to ask herself why she is held hostage by such gender roles. And on top of that - RATHER than really taking a look at herself critically and being honest - she makes sweeping generalizations about feminists that ARE NOT TRUE. I mean, a generalization like that would be similar to be calling every girl wearing a microkini a whore or someone who wants to be raped. That is just not cool.
While I think that women wear such clothing to get attention - I would never say that she asked to be raped or abused. Clearly she wants men (or women, depending on her preference but because of how heterocentric her post was - I think it's safe to assume she's trying to attract men) to check her out - there is no other reason to wear such an uncomfortable peice of clothing.
Any of the times I wore make-up and so-called "sexy" clothing was to get men to check me out. I just eventually learned that those things were unnecessary to get men to check me out - that's the difference between me and 95% of the women in this society.
SO, to smash the generalization right now, Here is WHO I am:
I'm a feminist. I'm vegan. I'm incredibly skinny. I shower at least every other day (yep, that's right, I think it's a waste of water to shower everyday - unless I'm rolling in the mud or getting toxic chemicals all over my face). I enjoy and love having sex and I'm up for doing just about anything my boyfriend wants to do (other than anal). I shave. I occasionally wear a bra when I feel self-conscious about the company I will be around (believe it or not - many women wearing cleavage shirts with their boobs hanging halfway out of their shirts have given me dirty looks for having my nipples bling everywhere). I'm rude to only people who are disrespectful to me and that includes (but not limited to) - women who try to get my boyfriend's attention when he's clearly with me, men who catcall to me, women/men who try to force me into conforming to gender standards, people who try to tell me how to act, say or behave, people who are egocentric and think they deserve to be the center of attention all the time and people who are conceited. in general these are the things that will lead me to be rude to people most of the time. Because I can't respect anyone who is going to treat me with disrespect - bottom line. I've met too many women who were willing to be rude to me by batting their eyelashes at my boyfriend and I'm not going to be nice to them. I'm simply not going to enable them, if I'm nice to them - then I'm basically saying, "It's cool that you want to give my boyfriend a hard-on, even though you don't like him." which would be a freakin lie on my part!
So many women are competetive on this level and it drives me absolutely nuts and I think it's completely rude and narcissistic - which isn't a benefit to them in the long run. The truth is - I'm not threatened by women who try to get my boyfriend's attention - I just think it's really annoying. Compared to all of the women who have ever tried to get his attention - I'm a lot more intelligent, I'm stronger, I'm 99% of the time more in shape (so I could kick their asses if I had to), I have more abilities and interests - which helps me keep my man, even if he does look at wother women sometimes.
Okay, so I came accross this blog and I was completely horrified. I definitely think that people who blog should have to get a license first because this article is complete CRAP. It is the most unintelligent blog I have read in a while.
So I'm going to pull up a few quotes and then analyze why I think this person made them.
She's got a point, you know. And let's talk seriously now about "castrating" men. Maybe this whole lecturing, pedantic, anti-sexual feministic ideal with the hardline feminists (or feminazis, as I think they should be called) did a lot more damage to relationships between men and women.
How does accepting women as they ARE castrate men (not how fake they can be)? The only men who feel threatened by women who are strong and are willing to not conform are men who are extremely insecure and usually very homophobic. The reality is that feminism makes it possible for men to express their feminine side without being called gay. Not that there is anything wrong with being gay but I'm so tired of people pointing fingers at people like that when a feminine guy isn't necessarily gay, just like some lesbians are really feminine. Shit, most of the feminine straight guys I know are the best fathers, treat their wives the best and lose the least interest in the bedroom with their wives or girlfriends. The most feminine guys I know, are actually the most real and the most down to earth. Why is that? Well I think it's because rather than setting their appearences to standards set by society and conforming - they take into life their own perspective and they are secure with themselves because they realize a lot of stereotypes and generalizations about feminine men are bunk. They are less critical about the women they date because they know how it feels to be treated like less of a man, simply because they prefer to sit with their legs crossed.
I haven't known a feminist that was against sex. That is also one of the most rediculous comments I have ever heard. There are a lot of women who express themselves as generically sexy who actually don't like sex or are sexually disfunctional. A lot of women who work in porn actually don't find pleasure in the act of having sex - they find more pleasure in their "fame" and the attention they get. For me - sex isn't about acting, it's about doing. I think that a lot of things and in around porn are actually anti-sexual. And porn sets up this standard that only brainwashed women and men would follow. I mention porn because I feel as though it has infiltrated popular culture and now, rather than women working on their brains, they seem to be working harder towards purchasing a new set of plastic boobs. Porn is anything BUT freedom of sexual expression. I mean, all porn is the same. Just like all women who express their sexuality via clothing typically dress the same. It's not freedom if people are cloning each other.
The only type of men who feel insecure about me not being about fashion and make-up are men who actually are insecure to begin with and are only looking for a sexy girl to have hanging off of their arm to show off to all of their friends to make them jealous. Any man who needs a make-up wearing, highHELL wearing, skirt wearing Girl is a man who isn't dating a girl for who she is but for how she looks and that can only be reduced to that man attempting to create a false illusion of his masculinity. Men who are really secure are not put off by women who are strong and who can think beyond cultural norms and fitting in.
YOU KNOW WHAT DOES CASTRATE MEN? The assumption most women make that they want a superficial girl. I think it is so messed up that women make these assumptions. ALL through highschool and college my female friends who were trendy would always pressure me into wearing make-up and "skanky" clothes (their word, not mine). They claimed that more guys would be interested in me and that I'd get more free drinks. THEY WERE WRONG. The times that I went to the bar in my usual hoodie and baggy pants - more guys talked to me and bought me drinks (I think too because if you don't come off as high maintenence - you become more appealing, no guy wants to date a girl that will expect a huge rock when they get married and lets be real about it - A LOT of men like some things being left to the imagination - it's much more tantalizing that way). One guy fell head over heels for me at the bar once (I didn't go home with him or anything - so it wasn't the good sex I'm able to provide). He picked me out of all the trendy girls at that bar and oddly enough - he was also trendy (which is why I was put off by him, I admit). The truth is - a lot of men still approached me at the bars and clubs. Not all men are into the plastic, generic MTV look.
In fact - when looking to be in a serious relationship - most men are going to turn to a girl like me - over the girl with her ass cheeks hanging out. There is no mystery to that either. Obviously if a girl has to go to the club in a mini skirt that leaves nothing to the imagination, she's probably looking for attention from anyone she can get it from (that includes the sneers she might get from other women - she she can claim they are jealous - even though most of them just think it's trashy). I've noticed that the more generically sexy a woman dressed (and I mean raunchy too) the more she's obsessed with getting attention from every man she can. Many women in my life have proved this over and over again. I know it's a stereotype and I realize that one size doesn't fit all but in general, this is a pretty easy equation to follow. I can tell by how a woman is dressed whether she's attention obsessed and needs to be the center of attention all the time. I can tell instantly by how a woman behaves, what her intentions are with me or with my boyfriend.
The sad trick is that a lot of the women who do this - aren't even into having sex or can't have orgasms... Don't believe me? Well I've known some of them. By looking at these women - most guys (and girls) would think they were sexual divas, up for anything, down with going down but that is simply NOT always TRUE. A lot of women who dress scantily actually do not like sex and would prefer getting attention over actual sex. Just like most feminists are not sex-haters or opposed to the pleasure of actually having sex (although - just like in the superficial group, there are feminists who have issues with sex as well). EIther way - appearence/lables are not good indicators of whether or not a woman enjoys having sex.
One big problem is that a lot of women and men think that porn = sex. They think clothes = sex but the only thing that equals sex IS sex. You can't replace it with a 2 dimensional screen. You can't replace actual sex with sexy clothing. That doesn't even make sense. I can figure out the intelligence of the author of this blog because she clearly thinks that sexy clothing = sex. Because what Arial Levy is pointing out is the problems with this false sexual expression, she's not talking about how sex is undesireable and something women should avoid. There is NOTHING in her book or her discussions that even suggests this sentiment. And anyone who uses that argument against her is simply trying to deflect the truth.
And that's another thing - one of the things she quotes reads like this:
It has always been like this, and it always will be, because men's achilles heel is that they go to pieces when a woman drops her top. Old-style feminists never understood this. - Belle
Am I the only woman that sees how wrong this is on ALL levels? First of all, what makes this quote really ignorant is that it assumes 1. ALL men like women. 2. ALL men are into breasts. 3. The assumption that men are powerless around naked women.
It really bothers me that women think that their bodies have this kind of control and power(ick on all levels). I think that it is demasculating and insulting to the intelligence of men. If anything, views like this are castrating to men. The truth is - Not all men are pigs who think with their dicks before their minds. There are men who see a woman behaving like this for what it is - insecurity. When women feel the need to get approval from men all the time, they are insecure. I don't need approval from men all the time because I'm already proud of myself. I don't need the approval of others to be happy with myself - unlike mainstream American women and men. Women can argue against what I have just said all they want but I have male friends who make fun of make-up and plastic looking women. Sure, they might not do it around women who do wear make-up because they really don't want to offend people (like me) but they really do think how women behave and conform is rediculous and weak. The other thing is that women assume that if a man looks at them - they are automatically undressing them in their head and I think that's also demasculating. I'm not wanting every guy I look at - there are even times I'm making fun of them in my own head (like if he has his hat tilted to the side and is walking with a limp). I remember Tyra Banks once mentioned that guys always check out the girls with make-up on but what she doesn't realize is that a lot of men check out those girls because they know that those girls are more insecure and probably more willing to do things they don't want to do, for approval AND sometimes men look at women with caked on make-up and think they are superficial and are picking on them in their minds - as I do with the guy who isnt hurt but walks with a limp.
Men are great at working together; they are self-congratulatory and supportive. We are not. That is our true weakness, and feminism exemplifies this flaw - witness the countless factions, all fighting for different things, from sex-positive feminists, who believe nudity is OK, to third-wave feminists, who think eyeliner is misogynistic.
This quote is a HUGE cop-out. This is what women pull out of their bums when they are unwilling to confront gender standards (especially hetero ones). Instead of looking at their own hand in the cattiness - their attempts to look hotter than every other woman. Most old time feminists were all about nudity (for example - in Brattleboro VT - women in the 70's walked around shirtless until they made nudity legal) - I find it hilarious that this person thinks that if a feminist hates mini-skirts and eyeliner that they think nudity is wrong. Actually - the naked human body is natural and therefor - I'm not opposed to nudity. I think that if nudity were made legal - less women would feel the need to wear push-up bras and thongs that just look distasteful and uncomfortable and thus - very petty. I'm actually very self-congratulatory - much more than most women. Why is that? Because I accept myself as I am, rather than conforming to gender standards and calling them sex. I am self-congratulatory because I accept my flaws and call them beautiful rather than trying to cover them up and deceive everyone. I embrace myself as a woman AS I AM - not as how society expects me to be. THAT makes my motives completely selfish and self-congratulatory. I'm unwilling to harm myself for the acceptence of others and I don't care what other women tell me - that makes me a better woman, that makes me embrace TRUE FEMININITY.
But even if you wear naughty lingerie for you, for no other reason than it makes you feel good, that is reason enough to keep it on. True feminism should celebrate femininity, and make you feel wonderful to be born a woman.
Oh and it strikes again. AGAIN another stupid woman (Bell) arguing that sexy underwear is celebrating femininity. I wonder what women like this would celebrate if human beings were stripped of all clothing....Their saggy breasts? And my problem with this quote, isn't that they are telling women to be free to do what they want (which I agree with 100%) it's the type of example she chose... It wasn't "if women feel like embracing their feminity and it makes them happy to NOT wear make-up or thongs etc" - it was a positive agrument FOR wearing underwear (as if women in society need anymore permission - how about helpig the women who struggle AGAINST these standards, who need it much more) that society finds sexy (I honestly find nothing sexy about underwear that causes yeast infections, but that's just my opinion). Which is fine but it's this assumption that if a woman like me points out all the things wrong with every non-human thing women find "feminine" she is attempting to tell women what to and what not to do.
The reality is that Ariel Levy NEVER talks about how women can't wear make-up and be feminists - what she is purely doing is attempting to get women to think about it more and think more about what they are saying when they call lacy underwear feminine. WHY is that kind of underwear feminine and who decided? If that underwear never existed, no woman would decide, randomly to make it and call it "sexy." There is something in society that TOLD this woman it was sexy and I have a feeling it has everything to do with all of the advertisments/media that make women believe this falsity. This is the question she is only daring women to address.
The sad thing is that most women react the same way this blogger does. Rather than honestly reflecting about their behaviors and ways of life - they simply attack the person who is posing the question and getting them to really think about it. And I mean - I sort of understand how someone would feel that Ariel Levy is attacking everything about their life but that isn't really the case.
I think part of the problem is that women don't want to admit that half of the shit they do is superficial. That they aren't presenting themselves as they REALLY look. No women want to admit that by covering themselves up (via make-up), adorning themselves and distorting their bodies that they are actually, TRUELY and HONESTLY denouncing the true feminine.
Yes, it is! I've had some hardline feminists at work try to lecture me about the fact I wear thongs and microkinis on the beach - the same old, past their sell-by date, arguments about how I succumb to the chauvinistic ideal that sees women as sex objects and not as human beings. Of course, these hardline feminists haven't done a single thing to help a female colleague and protect her against discrimination of any kind.
That's the thing that really irritates me too about this blogger. She says that feminists have done nothing to help female colleagues against discrimination but what the HELL has SHE done? Other than reduce all feminists who see gender roles as bullshit to hairy, anti-sexual fatties (as she does in the quote below). Like seriously - this bimbo (sorry, this is out of anger at this point) is the one who isn't helping by simply saying fake = feminine. By telling women they have to be fake and provocative to be feminine - she is basically saying that you have to be ONE way in order to be feminine, that by not shaving, you are not feminine - even if many of your personality traits are more feminine (like crying when angry - rather than yelling). And that's the irritation I have for women like this - one size does not fit all in terms of what is feminine or in terms of what is masculine. People have differing opinions about this and clearly - she is the one who is closed minded - not Ariel Levy.
they're only good at being pedantic, sex-fearing, idiotic little dictators that also "happen" to be fat, unwashed, hairy and rude to everyone that has the misfortune of crossing their path with theirs.
And this girl thinks she's above the type of feminists she's complaining about!!! She thinks she's better when she doesn't even ATTEMPT to ask herself why she is held hostage by such gender roles. And on top of that - RATHER than really taking a look at herself critically and being honest - she makes sweeping generalizations about feminists that ARE NOT TRUE. I mean, a generalization like that would be similar to be calling every girl wearing a microkini a whore or someone who wants to be raped. That is just not cool.
While I think that women wear such clothing to get attention - I would never say that she asked to be raped or abused. Clearly she wants men (or women, depending on her preference but because of how heterocentric her post was - I think it's safe to assume she's trying to attract men) to check her out - there is no other reason to wear such an uncomfortable peice of clothing.
Any of the times I wore make-up and so-called "sexy" clothing was to get men to check me out. I just eventually learned that those things were unnecessary to get men to check me out - that's the difference between me and 95% of the women in this society.
SO, to smash the generalization right now, Here is WHO I am:
I'm a feminist. I'm vegan. I'm incredibly skinny. I shower at least every other day (yep, that's right, I think it's a waste of water to shower everyday - unless I'm rolling in the mud or getting toxic chemicals all over my face). I enjoy and love having sex and I'm up for doing just about anything my boyfriend wants to do (other than anal). I shave. I occasionally wear a bra when I feel self-conscious about the company I will be around (believe it or not - many women wearing cleavage shirts with their boobs hanging halfway out of their shirts have given me dirty looks for having my nipples bling everywhere). I'm rude to only people who are disrespectful to me and that includes (but not limited to) - women who try to get my boyfriend's attention when he's clearly with me, men who catcall to me, women/men who try to force me into conforming to gender standards, people who try to tell me how to act, say or behave, people who are egocentric and think they deserve to be the center of attention all the time and people who are conceited. in general these are the things that will lead me to be rude to people most of the time. Because I can't respect anyone who is going to treat me with disrespect - bottom line. I've met too many women who were willing to be rude to me by batting their eyelashes at my boyfriend and I'm not going to be nice to them. I'm simply not going to enable them, if I'm nice to them - then I'm basically saying, "It's cool that you want to give my boyfriend a hard-on, even though you don't like him." which would be a freakin lie on my part!
So many women are competetive on this level and it drives me absolutely nuts and I think it's completely rude and narcissistic - which isn't a benefit to them in the long run. The truth is - I'm not threatened by women who try to get my boyfriend's attention - I just think it's really annoying. Compared to all of the women who have ever tried to get his attention - I'm a lot more intelligent, I'm stronger, I'm 99% of the time more in shape (so I could kick their asses if I had to), I have more abilities and interests - which helps me keep my man, even if he does look at wother women sometimes.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Feminism Ruins Women?!?
I came accross this fashion blog and that's what it said! Half of the women who commented on the site had the same exact ignorant comment to make. One even stated that feminism ruins men because when women become more masculine, men become more feminine....(could they be anymore homophobic? could they be any more brainwashed?)
The thing is - they completely ignore all of the women and men who don't fit into the closed definition of masculine or feminine.
I'm a masculine girl but I don't think I'm unfeminine. I still look feminine - even though I don't wear make-up, push-up bras and highhells. But I'm considered masculine just because I decide not to follow these gender standards and because I openly admit my love for tools and creating things, because I admit my love for things like physics and geology - both things usually shunned by most women I know (at least what I consider mainstream, MTV wannabe women).
Feminism exists for the girls like me and for the guys who want to be able to sit with their legs crossed without being ignorantly called gay. Feminism is for the guys who want to wear skinny jeans and are rediculed and called gay because of it. Feminism exists for that girl that loves her sports, playing in the mud and is too busy to worry about her appearences.
The reason beauty obsessed women make comments like that is because they don't need feminism. In their mind, they can't even comprehend that there are some intelligent women out there that purposely don't follow these gender standards. They can't comprehend for a minute that their "feminism" isn't defined by tinted cream and eyeliner. They can't even comprehend that the whole idea of gender roles is a social standard and nothing more than an illusion.
So why were they saying that feminism has ruined women? Because of a Dove ad, that showed a woman without make-up, without airbrushing - she had zits and freckles and she wasn't hiding them. Somehow, seeing this woman exactly how she really is - makes her masculine. Women aren't expected to just exist as just women, we are expected to change our appearences completely and make ourselves look completely different in order to get the label (this makes me want to puke).
This is how completely gone most women are (and men). A woman is seen as masculine, JUST BECAUSE SHE ISN'T WEARING MAKE-UP.
It makes me sick to think that there are women out there who think that you have to wear make-up to look feminine, it makes me sick that women actually think they are DEFINED by make-up. What makes me even more ill is the numbers of women who can't admit that they are vain about everything they do - from the clothes they buy, to how they present themselves and how they treat OTHER women. Vain women and men, ALWAYS push their vanity on others. They can't accept that some of us just don't give a shit about being the hottest girl or guy in the room.
Women like them ruin women, not feminism. It never even occurred to them that when they saw this ad and had those remarks, how they were objectifying that girl. How they wanted to put bells and ornaments on her and then she'd be acceptable to them and be just enough to call a "woman". They don't even get that they are creating this, "You have to do this and that in order to be considered feminine." THEY are the ones who ruin women, not feminism.
And I'll just point out that it's not that they wear make-up and follow these gender standards that makes them ruin women, it's how they treat women who think all that stuff is petty.
One of the comments goes...."it's an idea that thumbs its nose at male biology, which is highly visual. You want to be attractive to a man, do as much as you can with what you have." This is her defense that using make-up and airbrushing is not shallow. Isn't living your life in order to be attractive to men shallow in definition, is there any other way to define it? Isn't it shallow to assume that men only care about that? Doesn't that kind of assumption ruin men? Doesn't it sort of state that men are superficial pigs that can't get past a zit and can't be attracted to a woman's personality - which happens to have a lot more to offer than the size of her tits. I'm sorry but such comments would totally offend me if I were a man, I would be totally insulted. Not all men are visual when it comes to sex or attraction, not all men are obsessed with the fake female look.
If being a so-called masculine girl is so unattractive, than why have I ALWAYS been able to get boyfriends? And you know what - I steer clear of the superficial assholes that only date girls for their looks, rather than their abilities. I steer clear of the guys who think that fake boobs and the generic "sexy" look are some how real. I get the guys who think superficial girls are dumb and too stupid to think for themselves - I get the guys who think that women like that are bitches. I get the guys who value feminine brains and who actually VALUE feminine perspectives that have nothing to do with fashion, make-up etc. I get the guy who sees the girl batting her fake eyelashes while she swings her hips like she's a runway model and flips her hair and rolls his eyes. THAT is empowerment, I get the guys who are the gold - while those superficial bitches wonder why they are with some guy who would rather jerk off to porn.
The thing is - they completely ignore all of the women and men who don't fit into the closed definition of masculine or feminine.
I'm a masculine girl but I don't think I'm unfeminine. I still look feminine - even though I don't wear make-up, push-up bras and highhells. But I'm considered masculine just because I decide not to follow these gender standards and because I openly admit my love for tools and creating things, because I admit my love for things like physics and geology - both things usually shunned by most women I know (at least what I consider mainstream, MTV wannabe women).
Feminism exists for the girls like me and for the guys who want to be able to sit with their legs crossed without being ignorantly called gay. Feminism is for the guys who want to wear skinny jeans and are rediculed and called gay because of it. Feminism exists for that girl that loves her sports, playing in the mud and is too busy to worry about her appearences.
The reason beauty obsessed women make comments like that is because they don't need feminism. In their mind, they can't even comprehend that there are some intelligent women out there that purposely don't follow these gender standards. They can't comprehend for a minute that their "feminism" isn't defined by tinted cream and eyeliner. They can't even comprehend that the whole idea of gender roles is a social standard and nothing more than an illusion.
So why were they saying that feminism has ruined women? Because of a Dove ad, that showed a woman without make-up, without airbrushing - she had zits and freckles and she wasn't hiding them. Somehow, seeing this woman exactly how she really is - makes her masculine. Women aren't expected to just exist as just women, we are expected to change our appearences completely and make ourselves look completely different in order to get the label (this makes me want to puke).
This is how completely gone most women are (and men). A woman is seen as masculine, JUST BECAUSE SHE ISN'T WEARING MAKE-UP.
It makes me sick to think that there are women out there who think that you have to wear make-up to look feminine, it makes me sick that women actually think they are DEFINED by make-up. What makes me even more ill is the numbers of women who can't admit that they are vain about everything they do - from the clothes they buy, to how they present themselves and how they treat OTHER women. Vain women and men, ALWAYS push their vanity on others. They can't accept that some of us just don't give a shit about being the hottest girl or guy in the room.
Women like them ruin women, not feminism. It never even occurred to them that when they saw this ad and had those remarks, how they were objectifying that girl. How they wanted to put bells and ornaments on her and then she'd be acceptable to them and be just enough to call a "woman". They don't even get that they are creating this, "You have to do this and that in order to be considered feminine." THEY are the ones who ruin women, not feminism.
And I'll just point out that it's not that they wear make-up and follow these gender standards that makes them ruin women, it's how they treat women who think all that stuff is petty.
One of the comments goes...."it's an idea that thumbs its nose at male biology, which is highly visual. You want to be attractive to a man, do as much as you can with what you have." This is her defense that using make-up and airbrushing is not shallow. Isn't living your life in order to be attractive to men shallow in definition, is there any other way to define it? Isn't it shallow to assume that men only care about that? Doesn't that kind of assumption ruin men? Doesn't it sort of state that men are superficial pigs that can't get past a zit and can't be attracted to a woman's personality - which happens to have a lot more to offer than the size of her tits. I'm sorry but such comments would totally offend me if I were a man, I would be totally insulted. Not all men are visual when it comes to sex or attraction, not all men are obsessed with the fake female look.
If being a so-called masculine girl is so unattractive, than why have I ALWAYS been able to get boyfriends? And you know what - I steer clear of the superficial assholes that only date girls for their looks, rather than their abilities. I steer clear of the guys who think that fake boobs and the generic "sexy" look are some how real. I get the guys who think superficial girls are dumb and too stupid to think for themselves - I get the guys who think that women like that are bitches. I get the guys who value feminine brains and who actually VALUE feminine perspectives that have nothing to do with fashion, make-up etc. I get the guy who sees the girl batting her fake eyelashes while she swings her hips like she's a runway model and flips her hair and rolls his eyes. THAT is empowerment, I get the guys who are the gold - while those superficial bitches wonder why they are with some guy who would rather jerk off to porn.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Materialism
I consider myself a minimalist. I'm not sure if that is a real word, I'm not sure if other people consider themselves such, but that's what I consider myself. What this means is that I don't own things that don't have a use. I don't like having things kicking around that are just for show or serve no purpose.
It's amazing how many people are materialistic and it always amazes me how they just don't see how superficial that is. There are people all over this country who go into debt and for what? For show.
I have some examples. Someone I know got married last year. When she was first engaged, she was running around bragging about her diamond ring, that had one huge rock and two smaller ones next to it on white gold. All of her friends were "ooooh la la" about it and I just sat there, trying to bite my tongue. I think I may have complimented it (which was not my real will to be honest) just to appease her. Anyway, all of her friends felt that she had the best fiance in the world, I mean, how could he spend ALL of that money on her! She must be so damned special. Two years have passed, they are married now and guess what happened? She lost that ring and her wedding bands that each had like 9 small diamonds on them. No big deal right? Except - her husband never got insurence for the rings and they aren't even paid off! Buying these expensive rings for show and then losing them, it seems all for nothing to me.
The older I get and the longer I go without conforming to the whole idea of marriage, the more I realize how it's based around being materialistic and well, superficial. My friend was more obsessed with how big her boobs would look and how sexy she would be for her wedding than how well the marriage would work out. It certainly drove me nuts but what could I do? I don't run around preaching to people and I know that very few people truely understand my perspective. It woulda been like talking to a wall, I'm sure of it.
I'm not saying there is no merit to the idea of marriage but does it really change things? Or does it change things for the better at all? It seems to me that most of the people who get married end up having unrealistic expectations of each other. For example - all of a sudden, they expect their partner to change, just because they are married. All of a sudden it's a huge deal with the husband goes out for a drink with his friends or the girl goes out with hers. This is exactly how it is with my friend and her husband. If I hang out with her and we want to go have a few beers at the bar, he's totally against it (of course, it's okay for HIM to go out to the bars, go figure). I think when people get married they have higher expectations of the fairy tale ending and rarely does that actually happen. Certainly - I'll be just as devistated if what I got doesn't work out BUT I think that when people get married they have the expectation that it will or has to last forever. Even knowing that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, people still think that marriage will seal the deal. That expectation is still there, no matter how unrealistic it is.
Because of that expectation, I think that there is a lot more dissapointment than say if someone is just living with their boyfriend and things don't work out. For some reason, the big to do, the rings and all of the guests and their gifts make the break-up that much harder. Of course I've never been married, so maybe it is no worse than just breaking up.
Anyway, I think I went off on a tangent there. Oops :P
What I was getting at is that even marriage seems to be based around materialism or some kind of facade that is mostly ideal, and little to do with reality. I could pinch pennies and buy a Gucci bag but I'd still be poor. And that's what I've seen happen with my friend - she wanted so much, this facade and now it seems to be crashing down all around her. Her and her husband are constantly arguing about money. He thinks she's so bad for losing those rings, yet he has a 25 thousand dollar truck sitting in the garage that he can't even afford to fuel and is too stubborn to let go... Why won't he let it go? The freaking image. It's not serving any purpose there, it's not helping the environment when they actually do use it, it hasn't even been used for the purposes it should be used for (construction, moving things etc).
99% of the people driving around in pick-up trucks, SUVs and Vans have no real reason for doing so. All it does is eat away at their paycheck at the pump and cause more stress and anxiety. I guess I never understood why the image is more important than the anxiety. I remember my friend and her husband were picking on my boyfriend because he gave me $100 bucks towards a bill for valentines day... they were all, "Oh, how romantic and blah blah blah." I kept my tongue but I couldn't help but think to myself - you guys are so incredibly stupid. Besides, why try and force my boyfriend into be romantic if he doesn't want to be? Does that facade really make me feel any better? Sure, I might have looked better in materialistic people's eyes because I had a boyfriend who wanted to buy me expensive jewlry to express his undying love for me BUT I know how unreal that is. I know that my man would rather use that money towards a vacation or a downpayment on a house than to spend it on something that serves absolutely no purpose.
So here they are - married, horrible credit, living in a rented house that they can't afford (and yep, they have roommates in order to pay for "keeping up with appearences") - trying at every opportunity to make me feel like my boyfriend loves me less because he doesn't fall for such petty BS.
Materialism is such an intrusion on those of us who could give a shit less. Materialistic people just assume that everyone is going to perceive and think as they do and would probably go to great lengths to defend such behaviors. Like when my friend is shuving her ring in my face going "look at how much it sparkles, oooooh aaaaaah" - how does she know that I give a shit? How is it that she assumes that I would find any importance in it? It would sort of be like me showing off my new skateboard, when she doesn't skateboard. The major difference being that a skateboard actually serves a purpose, whereas rings serve none.
It's not that I object to the symbolism of a ring - I understand that a ring has no ending, I understand why that would fit in well with the vowe but do people really need to spend $10,000 before interest on one? Wouldn't a sterling silver rings serve the same purpose?
It's amazing how many people are materialistic and it always amazes me how they just don't see how superficial that is. There are people all over this country who go into debt and for what? For show.
I have some examples. Someone I know got married last year. When she was first engaged, she was running around bragging about her diamond ring, that had one huge rock and two smaller ones next to it on white gold. All of her friends were "ooooh la la" about it and I just sat there, trying to bite my tongue. I think I may have complimented it (which was not my real will to be honest) just to appease her. Anyway, all of her friends felt that she had the best fiance in the world, I mean, how could he spend ALL of that money on her! She must be so damned special. Two years have passed, they are married now and guess what happened? She lost that ring and her wedding bands that each had like 9 small diamonds on them. No big deal right? Except - her husband never got insurence for the rings and they aren't even paid off! Buying these expensive rings for show and then losing them, it seems all for nothing to me.
The older I get and the longer I go without conforming to the whole idea of marriage, the more I realize how it's based around being materialistic and well, superficial. My friend was more obsessed with how big her boobs would look and how sexy she would be for her wedding than how well the marriage would work out. It certainly drove me nuts but what could I do? I don't run around preaching to people and I know that very few people truely understand my perspective. It woulda been like talking to a wall, I'm sure of it.
I'm not saying there is no merit to the idea of marriage but does it really change things? Or does it change things for the better at all? It seems to me that most of the people who get married end up having unrealistic expectations of each other. For example - all of a sudden, they expect their partner to change, just because they are married. All of a sudden it's a huge deal with the husband goes out for a drink with his friends or the girl goes out with hers. This is exactly how it is with my friend and her husband. If I hang out with her and we want to go have a few beers at the bar, he's totally against it (of course, it's okay for HIM to go out to the bars, go figure). I think when people get married they have higher expectations of the fairy tale ending and rarely does that actually happen. Certainly - I'll be just as devistated if what I got doesn't work out BUT I think that when people get married they have the expectation that it will or has to last forever. Even knowing that more than 50% of marriages end in divorce, people still think that marriage will seal the deal. That expectation is still there, no matter how unrealistic it is.
Because of that expectation, I think that there is a lot more dissapointment than say if someone is just living with their boyfriend and things don't work out. For some reason, the big to do, the rings and all of the guests and their gifts make the break-up that much harder. Of course I've never been married, so maybe it is no worse than just breaking up.
Anyway, I think I went off on a tangent there. Oops :P
What I was getting at is that even marriage seems to be based around materialism or some kind of facade that is mostly ideal, and little to do with reality. I could pinch pennies and buy a Gucci bag but I'd still be poor. And that's what I've seen happen with my friend - she wanted so much, this facade and now it seems to be crashing down all around her. Her and her husband are constantly arguing about money. He thinks she's so bad for losing those rings, yet he has a 25 thousand dollar truck sitting in the garage that he can't even afford to fuel and is too stubborn to let go... Why won't he let it go? The freaking image. It's not serving any purpose there, it's not helping the environment when they actually do use it, it hasn't even been used for the purposes it should be used for (construction, moving things etc).
99% of the people driving around in pick-up trucks, SUVs and Vans have no real reason for doing so. All it does is eat away at their paycheck at the pump and cause more stress and anxiety. I guess I never understood why the image is more important than the anxiety. I remember my friend and her husband were picking on my boyfriend because he gave me $100 bucks towards a bill for valentines day... they were all, "Oh, how romantic and blah blah blah." I kept my tongue but I couldn't help but think to myself - you guys are so incredibly stupid. Besides, why try and force my boyfriend into be romantic if he doesn't want to be? Does that facade really make me feel any better? Sure, I might have looked better in materialistic people's eyes because I had a boyfriend who wanted to buy me expensive jewlry to express his undying love for me BUT I know how unreal that is. I know that my man would rather use that money towards a vacation or a downpayment on a house than to spend it on something that serves absolutely no purpose.
So here they are - married, horrible credit, living in a rented house that they can't afford (and yep, they have roommates in order to pay for "keeping up with appearences") - trying at every opportunity to make me feel like my boyfriend loves me less because he doesn't fall for such petty BS.
Materialism is such an intrusion on those of us who could give a shit less. Materialistic people just assume that everyone is going to perceive and think as they do and would probably go to great lengths to defend such behaviors. Like when my friend is shuving her ring in my face going "look at how much it sparkles, oooooh aaaaaah" - how does she know that I give a shit? How is it that she assumes that I would find any importance in it? It would sort of be like me showing off my new skateboard, when she doesn't skateboard. The major difference being that a skateboard actually serves a purpose, whereas rings serve none.
It's not that I object to the symbolism of a ring - I understand that a ring has no ending, I understand why that would fit in well with the vowe but do people really need to spend $10,000 before interest on one? Wouldn't a sterling silver rings serve the same purpose?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Some people really hang on to their anger. I'm not really sure I understand this. I guess I rarely hold on to anything... I've had plenty of people do somewhat evil things to me but I rarely hold any grudges. Most of the time, when it seems like I'm holding a grudge, it really isn't the case. I might avoid people who treat me bad but it doesn't mean I hold on to the things they did, it means that I'm protecting myself from future trouble. They say to forgive and forget but there are certain personality traits that really can't be forgotten and it's really stupid for anyone to have the expectation that we should forget a person's personality traits.
So what am I talking about? Well I've had to sort of push people out of my life who are really angry and can't let go of things. I could handle any angry person if they could let go of the things that make them angry. I'll admit that my boyfriend is really angry but at least he can let go of whatever made him mad and isn't still carrying it around with him the next day. The type of person I'm talking about is the type of person that is so extremely angry, they can't drop it. The next day through the next five years, they'll waste time and energy hating someone for something very small they did to them. They don't know how to deal with hating this person, so they spend time and energy trying to ruin their "image", thinking that is just revenge only because if someone were doing that to them, it would ruin them.
I've had one friend who is so angry, it consumes them. I don't hate this person, I don't have any ill wishes for them but they just can't seem to let go of the past. He's the type of guy that can't handle any kind of constructive criticism - if you suggest anything, he'll take it as some sort of attack. Worse is when he would do something wrong and if you tried to confront him about it, he'd get angry and exaggerate the situation. All you'd be looking for is a simple apology and somehow it would turn into a drawn out argument, and all of a sudden, you find yourself apologizing to him for doing you wrong.
I don't have a problem with the world having egocentric people in it but keep them away from me! People who are egocentric lack the ability to see anything from another human beings' (or animals') perspective. Those people are impossible to deal with and worse than anything is that they just seem to suck all of the positive energy out of the room (except for on rare occasions). Who really wants to be around a person that has to be the center of attention all the time? (as most egocentrics tend to be). Nothing is worse than having to deal with egocentric AND angry people.
It's strange to me how so many people think crying is a sign of sensitivity but I think there are many other emotional responses that are MUCH more sensitive. For example - if someone is so angry that they are yelling, wouldn't that make them more sensitive than the person who cries when dealing with that same kind of anger? I would think that the larger the expression, the larger the sensitivity.... but who knows, maybe it doesn't work like that exactly.
I guess anger is used more for manipulation. This is what I have noticed over the years anyway. Most people who scream and yell whenever things aren't going their way, are doing it so that people won't confront them again. If people never confront them out of fear, than the manipulation process is complete and the egocentric turd can continue taking no responsibility for themselves or their actions. When someone yells they are basically saying, "See what happens when you bother me with this? Do you really want to put up with it again?" Unfortunately it really does work cuz normal people really don't want to deal with that kind of drama. There are people (usually egocentrics) who think that if someone confronts another person about something - the person confronting is creating drama but that is simply not the case. Drama Queens/Kings are people who can't handle confrontation and take any form of it as an attack on their entire existence and have to lash out in extreme ways - like spreading rumors and lies about their confrontors, exaggerating their comments, ranting and raving about their confronters to everyone and anyone they can get their hands on. They think that they are ruining the other people by ruining their image but that just never really works. They end up making themselves look stupid because everyone just gets tired of hearing about this or that person. In the end, the Drama Queen/Kings end up making themselves look foolish - especially when they turn on the people they vent to and do the SAME EXACT THING to them. That's when people start to realize that the confronters are actually the real people and that the drama queen/king is just really annoying and trying to manipulate situations constantly around them.
Either way, I don't hold grudges towards these types of people but I dare say, I keep them the hell away from me! They should all just rally up together and when they project their personality traits onto others, at least they'll be accurate!
So what am I talking about? Well I've had to sort of push people out of my life who are really angry and can't let go of things. I could handle any angry person if they could let go of the things that make them angry. I'll admit that my boyfriend is really angry but at least he can let go of whatever made him mad and isn't still carrying it around with him the next day. The type of person I'm talking about is the type of person that is so extremely angry, they can't drop it. The next day through the next five years, they'll waste time and energy hating someone for something very small they did to them. They don't know how to deal with hating this person, so they spend time and energy trying to ruin their "image", thinking that is just revenge only because if someone were doing that to them, it would ruin them.
I've had one friend who is so angry, it consumes them. I don't hate this person, I don't have any ill wishes for them but they just can't seem to let go of the past. He's the type of guy that can't handle any kind of constructive criticism - if you suggest anything, he'll take it as some sort of attack. Worse is when he would do something wrong and if you tried to confront him about it, he'd get angry and exaggerate the situation. All you'd be looking for is a simple apology and somehow it would turn into a drawn out argument, and all of a sudden, you find yourself apologizing to him for doing you wrong.
I don't have a problem with the world having egocentric people in it but keep them away from me! People who are egocentric lack the ability to see anything from another human beings' (or animals') perspective. Those people are impossible to deal with and worse than anything is that they just seem to suck all of the positive energy out of the room (except for on rare occasions). Who really wants to be around a person that has to be the center of attention all the time? (as most egocentrics tend to be). Nothing is worse than having to deal with egocentric AND angry people.
It's strange to me how so many people think crying is a sign of sensitivity but I think there are many other emotional responses that are MUCH more sensitive. For example - if someone is so angry that they are yelling, wouldn't that make them more sensitive than the person who cries when dealing with that same kind of anger? I would think that the larger the expression, the larger the sensitivity.... but who knows, maybe it doesn't work like that exactly.
I guess anger is used more for manipulation. This is what I have noticed over the years anyway. Most people who scream and yell whenever things aren't going their way, are doing it so that people won't confront them again. If people never confront them out of fear, than the manipulation process is complete and the egocentric turd can continue taking no responsibility for themselves or their actions. When someone yells they are basically saying, "See what happens when you bother me with this? Do you really want to put up with it again?" Unfortunately it really does work cuz normal people really don't want to deal with that kind of drama. There are people (usually egocentrics) who think that if someone confronts another person about something - the person confronting is creating drama but that is simply not the case. Drama Queens/Kings are people who can't handle confrontation and take any form of it as an attack on their entire existence and have to lash out in extreme ways - like spreading rumors and lies about their confrontors, exaggerating their comments, ranting and raving about their confronters to everyone and anyone they can get their hands on. They think that they are ruining the other people by ruining their image but that just never really works. They end up making themselves look stupid because everyone just gets tired of hearing about this or that person. In the end, the Drama Queen/Kings end up making themselves look foolish - especially when they turn on the people they vent to and do the SAME EXACT THING to them. That's when people start to realize that the confronters are actually the real people and that the drama queen/king is just really annoying and trying to manipulate situations constantly around them.
Either way, I don't hold grudges towards these types of people but I dare say, I keep them the hell away from me! They should all just rally up together and when they project their personality traits onto others, at least they'll be accurate!
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
I'm still thinking a lot about animals and humans and our relationships. It's so confusing to me, how so many people (especially veternarians) put so much heart and soul into helping animals but then turn around and eat them or the "products" they produce.
I have a friend that I totally love but she's so hypocritical on this level. She claims to love animals more than anything in the world, she helps them so much, her heart is there for animals all the time BUT she eats a lot of meat, dairy and egg products. She's offended that my parents let our cats just run around in the woods. She's offended because they could get eaten by some wild animal or seriously injured. This is where our hearts are in totally different places. I could never keep my cats inside. One of them prefers to be inside most of the time but the other just ITCHES to be outside all the time. We tried to keep her indoors when she was like 1, but she just wanted soooo much to be outside and I couldn't hold her inside... Who are we to take away an animals free will for food or for our own selfish priorities? Cuz when you think about it - keeping your animals locked inside to prevent them from dying is pretty selfish. That's like not allowing your kid to get his/her drivers license cuz they could get hit by a car. Shit happens and I really hope that I never find any of my cats mutilated BUT shit happens, life happens, things die, no matter what you do to prevent their death.
I can't describe the joy my cat expresses when it becomes warm enough for her to spend her days outside... She loves to be outside at night too - which does make me nervous and I always try to keep her inside but she usually gets the best of me.
I just don't know how people can be so against listening to their animals, giving them free will. The one thing we value most ourselves, is our freedom. Wouldn't loving animals imply that you wish to give them that basic right?
I'll never understand how people can sit there and say they love animals but in the same breath - swallow a chunk of flesh that came from an animal. It's like do you love their taste or their companionship? I just don't think the two together make much sense and it IS a huge contradiction. I've come to this point where even if my health was failing me and death was close, I would not put a peice of animal anything in my mouth ever again. I'm really confident that humans can live without animal foods (we are omnivores afterall and most primates basically live off of a raw vegan diet - with the addition of insects and so little meat that it could hardly be considered the reason for their good health). If I woke up tomorrow and went to the doctors and they were like, you have to eat meat or you will die - I would flip them off and walk out the door. Actually - I have had this happen, I just knew it was a load of BS, especially because there wasn't a thing wrong with me (I was just at the doctors for a physical). I didn't flip her off - I actually wouldn't do that (except for maybe in my head) I just didn't listen to her and here I am, 8 years later and I still haven't had any kind of animal product. And for 11 years, I haven't eaten any meat.
It's funny to me too - how many of these "animal lovers" will try and convince me that I NEED to have animal foods. They come to me with all of these bogus medical "facts" (coming mostly from stupid Mercola and Weston A Price Foundation studies - which is like me quoting medical advice from PETA) about why vegans can't live vegan. It's so irritating because I know of people who are in their 50s and have had no medical problems and have been vegan since they were 19. The proof is in the puddin and people can come to me with quotes or studies but I have real life experience - something they are clueless about because they only know ONE vegan. ONE vegan that hasn't had an major medical problems other than genetic pains in the ass... (and by that, I mean gallbladder malfunction). I even treated my gallbladder issues with food, rebalanced my diet and here I am four years later, free of any pain whatsoever.
I have a friend that I totally love but she's so hypocritical on this level. She claims to love animals more than anything in the world, she helps them so much, her heart is there for animals all the time BUT she eats a lot of meat, dairy and egg products. She's offended that my parents let our cats just run around in the woods. She's offended because they could get eaten by some wild animal or seriously injured. This is where our hearts are in totally different places. I could never keep my cats inside. One of them prefers to be inside most of the time but the other just ITCHES to be outside all the time. We tried to keep her indoors when she was like 1, but she just wanted soooo much to be outside and I couldn't hold her inside... Who are we to take away an animals free will for food or for our own selfish priorities? Cuz when you think about it - keeping your animals locked inside to prevent them from dying is pretty selfish. That's like not allowing your kid to get his/her drivers license cuz they could get hit by a car. Shit happens and I really hope that I never find any of my cats mutilated BUT shit happens, life happens, things die, no matter what you do to prevent their death.
I can't describe the joy my cat expresses when it becomes warm enough for her to spend her days outside... She loves to be outside at night too - which does make me nervous and I always try to keep her inside but she usually gets the best of me.
I just don't know how people can be so against listening to their animals, giving them free will. The one thing we value most ourselves, is our freedom. Wouldn't loving animals imply that you wish to give them that basic right?
I'll never understand how people can sit there and say they love animals but in the same breath - swallow a chunk of flesh that came from an animal. It's like do you love their taste or their companionship? I just don't think the two together make much sense and it IS a huge contradiction. I've come to this point where even if my health was failing me and death was close, I would not put a peice of animal anything in my mouth ever again. I'm really confident that humans can live without animal foods (we are omnivores afterall and most primates basically live off of a raw vegan diet - with the addition of insects and so little meat that it could hardly be considered the reason for their good health). If I woke up tomorrow and went to the doctors and they were like, you have to eat meat or you will die - I would flip them off and walk out the door. Actually - I have had this happen, I just knew it was a load of BS, especially because there wasn't a thing wrong with me (I was just at the doctors for a physical). I didn't flip her off - I actually wouldn't do that (except for maybe in my head) I just didn't listen to her and here I am, 8 years later and I still haven't had any kind of animal product. And for 11 years, I haven't eaten any meat.
It's funny to me too - how many of these "animal lovers" will try and convince me that I NEED to have animal foods. They come to me with all of these bogus medical "facts" (coming mostly from stupid Mercola and Weston A Price Foundation studies - which is like me quoting medical advice from PETA) about why vegans can't live vegan. It's so irritating because I know of people who are in their 50s and have had no medical problems and have been vegan since they were 19. The proof is in the puddin and people can come to me with quotes or studies but I have real life experience - something they are clueless about because they only know ONE vegan. ONE vegan that hasn't had an major medical problems other than genetic pains in the ass... (and by that, I mean gallbladder malfunction). I even treated my gallbladder issues with food, rebalanced my diet and here I am four years later, free of any pain whatsoever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
