In an effort to help males assimilate into civilized society, I recommend noting the following:
"Good manners are, first of all, civilized behavior. That's as opposed to wild behavior. 'He acts like he was raised in a barnyard,' my mother would say, about some hapless boy who pulled up in front of my house for a date and just sat in the car and honked."
This act translates to: "Yo bitch, get your ass out here!" even if the thought behind the act is only: "OMG, your dad is scary, your parents will hate me, I don't know what to say to them, fearfearfear!" Either way, you are undesirable. Grow a pair and learn how to go on a date without being a douchebag or go home.
I should mention that I have never experienced this. The boys I dated all came to the door - that was when the trouble usually started (the trouble being only that they were... disappointing). They either didn't know how to talk to parents and grunted their way through conversations, or they THOUGHT they knew how and clearly saw themselves as very charming (which is not at all charming). Being nervous is completely okay and understandable. In fact, my mom would have reacted to a sincerely polite guy who was a bit nervous about making a good impression with "Aw, he was nervous. Good." He would get a "point" for being able to carry on a conversation reasonably well, and for not assuming he was in control of the situation (With my mom? Hahahaha! My mom is so slick in those situations and is very good at getting information out of people. Any guy who doesn't notice this gets labelled "doof").
And now I'm all grown up, but living at home... lame. So, the same rules sort of apply because honestly, I want to see if a guy passes the meeting the parents at the door test. While in a way I'm sorry to have to inflict a meeting the parents moment on a guy on a first or second date, the fact is, I am poor and live off the 'rents. That's life right now. If a guy can't engage in polite non-smarmy conversation with them, I don't want his lame ass.
:)
Labels: boys, dating, society
"...a woman is best advised not to sleep with a man on a first date."
No fucking way! Are you shitting me? REALLY? OMG, I NEVER would have thought that. Damn. Thank GOD for NEW STUDIES!
Labels: relationships, sex, society
Thank you, urbandictionary.com. It's all starting to make sense now. Unfortunately.
Also see: http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=83436
Labels: society, TMI
Or it was in LA.
Labels: society
She could be "tweaked." Uh huh. Robot sex slaves are next, I'm telling ya.
Labels: society
Sorry, but it's gonna happen.
Ewww.
Labels: society
So, the thought police have struck in Massachusetts public schools to keep those guilty of the of the sin of intolerance from adversely affecting their children. Lovely.
In my state, civil unions for gays are legal. I don't think I care. What I have wondered about, though, is what happens fifteen years from now when I have a kid in elementary school? What if I want to tell my kid, "Actually... I don't think homosexuality is normal," in addition to things like, "Don't ever be mean to someone for being different from you." That's not good enough for some proponets of gay marriage, apparently. Some have this need for everyone to THINK like them, not just accept them.
Well, guess what? People aren't all going to agree. This is America, remember? The idea is, we agree that we won't beat the shit out of each other for disagreeing. THAT is tolerance. And those who do beat people up get sent to jail. THAT is justice.
I grew up in the Bible Belt. I am not a fundamentalist Christian. I had friends who thought I was going to hell and was completely wrong about God and Jesus and the Universe and that I needed to be saved. So we disagreed. We still hung out, studied and participated in clubs together and for the most part got along (except when I wanted to play secular pop music at a friend's house... she got upset... ooops! In her defense, I will say that we watched The Monkees together on VH1). At the most, it was irritating, but only if I thought about it too often. And fortunately, I live in America, where we can believe whatever we want, so their religious ideas didn't threaten me.
Likewise, I don't feel threatened by gay people. Fuck whoever you want. I might think it's weird, but I'm not be rude and tell you that or try to change you. Live your own life, and I'll live mine, and maybe we'll get coffee (tea for me) on Tuesday.
And meanwhile, I'm gonna teach my (future) kids not only that homosexuality doesn't make any sense to me personally (I thought we had sex drives to keep our species going), but that the arguments in support of gay marriage don't always hold water, particularly when applied to different situations. For example:
1) "It's how I feel, so it must be okay." I once felt like punching a guy in the face. But he really didn't deserve it, technically. And I would have gotten in trouble. So I didn't. We all have good and bad and neutral desires. As adults, it is our job to decide for ourselves which fall into which category based on, for one, the logical outcomes of acting on a particular desire. So if you're a guy who wants to screw a guy, you can. Or you can decide, "Wait, anal sex is gross. I have conflicting desires. Thinkthinkthink... Okay, maybe I won't do that." Because eeeew, buttsex. Anyway. The point is, we're human beings and we're free to weigh the options and choose what we do.
2) "I was born this way." Maybe. Maybe not. Nature vs. nurture. Who knows? You know what you were born? A crying helpless baby, like all of us. We don't always end up what we were born. We grow up, consider things, have stuff thrown at us, deal as best we can, make choices, etc. Of course we all have random desires and we don't always know why, so it's easy to say, "I must have been born this way. There must be something in my genes that makes me want this." That could be. But that ignores the emotional aspects of sexual desire (remember, I'm a girl!), so there are a lot of aspects to consider. I think it's important for us to ask ourselves, WHY do I like this guy/girl? Am I insecure and want someone stronger? Am I a jerk and want someone to push around? Do I have a desire to take care of someone? Is it really just that he looks like James Dean? Am I really that shallow? Fuck.
I'm not attacking anyone for being gay or bi. I don't have those desires so I can't understand what it's like, although I try. I want to understand and empathize, but I also want to pass on my belief that you shouldn't let your desires push you around to my kids.
I think I'm gonna have to send my kids to private school. Damn, I need to make more money!
Labels: culture, society
Some of the craziest people want to be therapists: "The woman, who has earned a bachelor degree in women's studies and now wants to start a master's degree in marriage and family therapy, is hoping the bidding will hit $1 million."
I guess this student's women's studies classes didn't teach her how not to completely demean and devalue herself. Oops!
Um, yeah. So, if you ever go to family therapy, ask your therapist if she ever auctioned her virginity. I think I would consider that a deal breaker.
After working in customer service for a year, and after reading this article, I just want to stand up and scream, "HEY OUT THERE! PLEASE STOP DOING STUPID THINGS, OKAY???"
Labels: news, society
Um. WTF?
I believe that, to an extent, Americans have the right to look stupid. We don't have the right to walk into a Subway naked and order a sandwich, but we should be able to display our cute plaid boxers. Even if doing so makes us look like tasteless morons and makes people like me want to scream, "What the FUCK is wrong with those people?"
Similarly, Americans have the right to burn our flag. It is idiotic to burn the symbol of the ideals and laws that allow us to peacefully protest, but we do and should continue to have the right to do it.
Why? Because, when people let 8 inches of their boxers stick out of their ill-fitting pants or burn the stars and stripes, it sends a clear message that these people are morons, which helps the rest of us avoid them. Why outlaw something that provides such a convenient service to a majority of Americans?
:)
Labels: politics, society
I get fairly annoyed at "Look at my boobs!" ads, no matter what they're advertizing. They don't endear me at all to the companies using this type of advertizement, but apparently they work - at least, they get people's attention, kind of like those annoying "Stop staring at me! Advertize here!" posters. It would be nice if they'd just disappear, but should the government ban them? Do the Europeans need the government to save them from their shallow masses?
Eva-Britt Svensson thinks so. Ms Svensson said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising straitjackets women, men, girls and boys by restricting individuals to predetermined and artificial roles that are often degrading, humiliating and dumbed down for both sexes."
Um, no, actually, this individual isn't "restricted," but thanks for your concern. Of course people are influenced by ads, but that's one of those things your kindergarten teachers and parents teach you when you're little - it's on TV... it's in an ad... it's not REAL. We nevertheless go through phases (the stupidity of youth) when we think these images mean something, and some of us never leave ("OMG, my Prada bag is so out of season! What will the neighbors think?") - but changing ads won't eliminate the problems of obsessing over a particular vision of womanliness/manliness because the ads were never the source of these attitudes - the ads just reflect ideas that are already out there.
Clearly, these ads don't work for everyone, like Svensson and me. If enough people say, hey, we're annoyed, the advertizers will choose new campaigns to appeal to more people (like Dove does). The solution should come from the people, not from on high.
And anyway, what if such restrictions were to go into effect? Would only men be allowed to advertize skillets? What happens when THAT becomes a gender stereotype? "Oh, you know, men and their skillets!" Who knows.
Svensson also said: "Gender stereotyping in advertising is one of several factors that have a big influence in efforts to make society more gender equal. When women and men are portrayed in a stereotypical way the consequence may be that it becomes difficult in other contexts to see women and men's resources and abilities."
Well, if you look more at ads than reality, sure, it could be difficult to see men and women as individuals with overlapping skill sets. And THAT is a problem. But controlling what people are exposed to isn't going to make them better at seeing through the stereotypes.
I'm curious to know what Svensson's idea of "gender equal" is. Does she really mean "gender equal" or "gender same"? I don't think she could be called a "difference feminist" - the feminists who acknowledge inherent differences between men and women. I guess in her perfect world, 50% of construction workers would be women - anything less would be "unfair" or the product of some enforced patriarchal blah blah blah.
The important thing is to make it so that when people want to cross the usual gender lines, they can and can do so without being harrassed. That's why we have anti-discrimination laws, which basically tell people not to be douchebags, and help women break into new fields in the REAL WORLD (as opposed to in ads). The more the real world changes, the more 1) ads will change, and 2) ads that are sexist won't be able to hold people back because fewer people will buy into what those images represent.
By the way, prohibiting ads that show sexist (including, OMG, people in traditional gender roles!) images is not the same as prohibiting discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws make it less difficult for people to do what they want - they don't FORCE them to break out of certain molds. That's the problem with Svensson's idea - its real world equivalent is some government official telling a stay at home mom that she's a bad influence on society and had better put her kid in day care and get a job. Or telling a construction worker that he has to give up his job, and starve himself so he can fit into skinny jeans because his current job and body represent that old kind of manliness.
Fortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority isn't buying Svensson's plan: "The Advertising Standards Authority however had said there are already checks in place to prevent 'discriminatory or harmful' material. A spokesman said: 'Although the ASA supports the overall objectives of the report... the approach suggested is inflexible and impractical.'"
What Svensson SHOULD do is start her own campaign - some "think outside the box" ads with women as breadwinners and men as stay at home dads and women building houses and men sewing (aside: there is TOTALLY nothing unmanly about sewing. At all.) Instead of trying to control what's out there to be seen, Svensson should join in the conversation and compete fairly for the attention of the people.
In conclusion, fuck anti-freedom totalitarian fascists. The end. ^__^
Labels: gender, silliness, society
These long links are really messing up my layout
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1023168/Why-hurt-feelings-worth-250-000-para-woman.htmlAnyway. Let's talk about sex change operations. Well, no. Let's talk about what it means to be a woman.
Excerpt: "We meet at her home in Lytham, the small seaside town near Blackpool, and it is hard to picture this heavily made-up brunette as a respected Army captain. Her femininity may still be challenged by a husky voice and unmistakably broad shoulders, but her size 12 shape is remarkably womanly.
Her new body is hugged by blue jeans, a fitted jacket and a tight vest top which highlights the cleavage of her breast implants. She towers in stiletto ankle boots that add unnecessary inches, yet says her frame is rapidly diminishing as oestrogen hormone therapy atrophies her muscle mass.
Her flat is a paean to feminine taste, all mauve drapes, vases of lilies, bowls of toffees on glass tables, next to a Sophia Loren book called Women And Beauty."
I have no idea what it's like to feel like you're the wrong gender. Scary and frustrating to a level I have never experienced, I imagine. But when I read the above, I thought, "s/he's more girly than I am!" I am rather girly. I squeal when I'm excited. I like sparkly things, and you know, girly stuff. But it sounds to me like Jan's trying a little too hard (she does have something to prove). Or maybe she just really likes mauve. But I honestly don't understand... well, I don't understand gender issues. I went to a women's college and they tried to "shape" my life and teach me about how men were constantly making life so terribly unfair for women (but never teaching us what to DO about it, other than voting for Hillary. Um, no) but at the same time how gender is "fluid" (does that sound gross? I think it's just the word "fluid." Sorry, I'll grow up now).
And, since I recently saw Sex and the City, I'm in kind of a "NO! That is not what being a woman is about! Wasting money on expensive shoes when we could be feeding starving people is NOT womanly. It's just retarded" kind of mood.
I've neer been sorry I'm a woman, but a lot of that is probably because I've never thought "I can't do what I want because I'm a woman." Well, except lift heavy things. But that's not really because I'm a woman - it's because I'm freaking tiny, and not like my friend Dana, who has these broad shoulders and could probably carry her boyfriend up a hill if she had to and is totally beautiful.
I don't know what women are "supposed" to be in our society. People complain about how women are expected to be dainty and weak, but I don't know who expects that. Plenty of people over the years have expected women to be strong (anyone remember the Great Depression?) If a lot of people expected me to be weak, I would probably be in a rage all the time. But even growing up in what I guess was a conservative household (Dad worked, Mom raised me and planted things and volunteered) I never felt like I was limited by being a girl (except for the overprotectiveness thing... which I totally understand, actually... "Look at those girl out at the mall with no parents around! How easily could they be kidnapped? I don't think they know kung fu!" Just wait 'til I'm a mom, oh man...).
Well, there was this one time. Mom didn't think playing bass (upright... yeah, the BIG violin thing, uh huh) was "ladylike." Too bad - I'd already seen that Elvis movie where the guy lays the bass on its side, stands on it, and plays rock and roll (BTW, don't stand on your bass. They are wood and can break. Fortunately, this has never happened to me, I swear). I told my girl friends in about 3rd grade after I'd seen the movie that I was gonna play bass someday. They were like, yeah, uh huh, right. I don't know why; I think they were just being contrary. One of those girls, who I met up with a couple years ago, didn't remember saying that and didn't know why she would have. Silly elementary school things.
So, when 6th grade orchestra started, I signed up to play bass. The teacher, a woman, said, if you can carry it, you can play it. Fortunately, basses are hollow, so that worked (I can actually lift one above my head and carry it across a crowded practice room - it's more a matter of balance than strength). And now, my mum realizes that, as I'm rather ladylike (ignore the manly belching, please; it's involuntary. Usually.), playing bass does not make a woman unladylike. And of course Mom's proud of my musical accomplishments.
But, as much as you hear about glass ceilings and such, in certain areas in a lot easier for women to be "manly" than for men to be "womanly," which isn't really fair. There's no reason why men can't wear skirts (ask the Scots) or paint their nails (although, as I haven't painted mine in years, I personally would not date a man who's all into manicures... but then again, I don't think metro guys are really worried about what I think of them ^_^ ). Oh, guess who's had nailpolish on his nails more recently than I have - my DAD! Mr. former Navy so not feminine in any way doesn't want his nails to look like total crap. And as he wouldn't know how to fix them himself he's has had a couple manicures, even with some clear polish (which he didn't like, but when he realized that buffing makes his nails shiny anyway, he was like, oh well).
There are just too many issues in this gender topic to really go into it (like, what about boys who like to play with tea sets and Barbies but are straight? I remember reading an article in class about boys who think they're gay bc they like to do ballet or whatever and then realize, wait... I actually don't like guys... I like chicks... hm).
I do tend to think that men and women have some inherent differences/gender defining qualities, but they're manifested in a variety of ways, and it doesn't make sense to say "only women like such and such" or "that's a man thing." I think we cause trouble for ourselves when we try to define gender by likes and dislikes and colors and shoes and jobs.
I guess I wonder if we did that less, would Jan have felt the need to physically become a woman? Maybe, but would that be the case with all transvestites? She said it's really important for her to be seen as a woman, and I think that's similar to how it's really important for women to be seen as the type of woman they want to be seen as (hot, fashionable, strong, dangerous, whatever). *Shrug*
Well, this has been rambly. Time to be productive.
Labels: gender, society
SATC!!!!11111z0r
Sex and the City is not deserving of a four letter acronym. SATC reminds me of LOTR, and it hurts my brain to associate something nearly worthless with ...LOTR (how can I describe LOTR in a few words? Okay, for the purposes of this comparison, let's fill in the ... with "something with characters worth emulating").
I saw the movie with a couple girlfriends and I found it pretty funny (I'm too "old" to be shocked/disgusted by it). Of course, I laughed at the wrong parts. Oops. ^__^ Instead of going into how bad the dialogue was or how much I don't want any of the characters' lives, I will post this, which is probably the best criticism of SATC (ewww) ever written:
http://www.themorningnews.org/archives/new_york_new_york/the_opposite_of_sex_and_the_city.phpThis article has made my morning.
I want to highlight this paragraph: "It’s the fertility treatment, plus the waiting until the late 30s, that does it: a whole portion of the world is now only coming into existence because of expensive treatments and pills, the desire to create a child after all those years of consumption, the sudden bursting-forth of an equation in the not-yet-maternal breast: child is fulfillment, not-child is emptiness, followed by a passionate desire to solve the equation, to put a baby on the right-hand-side of it and cancel out the emptiness denominator."
Something to ponder, and probably post about later. But for now I think I have the "I am somehow interested in it but I hate Sex and the City" out of my system enough to go get some work done.
Labels: movies, society, TV
Canada and ish
So I was reading up on the latest Democratic primaries (
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/05/07/clinton-obama.html) at a Canadian news site, and some Canuck is like, America is one of the most conservative countries in the world!
Some people are so sheltered. That guy needs a hockey puck in the face. I don't think it's worth expounding too much on why America is not one of the most conservative countries in the world (for proof, just Google image "transvestite" and count how many were pics taken in the Village. Then count how many were taken in Riyadh.) but I just have to get this out of my system before I write back to my Canadian penpal/Facebook friend; he doesn't need to be on the receiving end of my twitchy rage.
Right, so, *growls*, *ROARS!*, *takes deep breath*...
A'ight, I'm good.
Well, maybe not. My mum was watching some secret lives of women show last night (if they're on TV, how are they secret, hmm?) about a woman who escaped a polygamist cult and is now trying to rescue her sister and other people. Obviously these cults are very disturbing and make me wish I'd taken up vigilantism, but they're also very confusing. I think someone like me would have been kicked out for being too obnoxious (as least I hope I would have been). I try to understand how people can go along with it; I say, "Oh, it's understandable if that's all they've been taught," but is it that hard to figure out when you're being mistreated? I guess it is. One of the women on the show didn't try to escape until her husband decided to kill their disabled child. It's funny (sad?) that so many people bitch about how unfair life is, that they have to go to work and wear pantyhose or whatever, and others aren't allowed to show affection for their 15 children but never say anything. Of course out in the "real world"/my world, bitching is sort of encouraged; not only being an individual but shoving your individuality in the faces of anyone unlucky enough to be stuck in an elevator next to you is normal. And naturally our environment influences how we act, what aspects of our personalities we display... but I really hope, and think, based on what a pain in the ass I was as a kid, that there might be a fewer polygamist men who are capable of reproducing, had I been born into a cult. And I'd probably be dead by now, but you know... I just like to think I would have taken a few down with me. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, in a Steven Seagal kind of way.
That kind of sounded wrong. Having thoughts like that is probably one of the many reasons I'm almost always single. But let's not get into that.
Yeah, I just hope I would have been brave enough. I know I could have been - it's the would have you never find out. Now I kind of get why my coworker is going to run with/from the bulls in Pamplona this year. Most of us are never tested or required to do what the woman who escaped from the polygamists did, and still does, even with all the death threats she receives. Most of us, like me and I guess my bull running coworker, Kojo, just don't have those kinds of challenges. So Kojo's gonna go throw himself into a stupid situation to find out, I guess, how he can handle it. I suppose it is important to find out what you're capable of.
Meanwhile, I'm like, you stupid idiot, if you're gonna do it you better start training now! And arrive early and memorize the streets and look for things to climb in case you're cornered, OMG!!!
And also meanwhile, I'm working on stories about girls with superpowers and girls who get tossed into other realms and almost get eaten, etc. I don't know how much excitement I want in my life (boring can be good) but after I do the whole serious pay off loan/take GRE/finish grad school thing, I might need to, I dunno, find a mission, so to speak. I don't think I really want to be Batgirl (I don't think...) but there's just too much crap going on in the world and if one can do something about it, one should (of course, one has to pick a thing or two to work on and there are just too many choices... human trafficking, polygamist cults, poverty, illiteracy...). If I were really brave, I'd be like my friend Bethany and go teach English in Cambodia. Well, I'll do something. Really, I will!
After I answer 50 emails and grade 7 more essays.
Labels: society
Silly Facebook
So, someone on Facebook has declared tomorrow "Hug a Gay Day."
I laughed when I read that. Is that bad?
It's a nice idea, but the thought of carrying it out is kinda weird to me.
Me: Stand still so I can hug you.
Gay/Bi Friend: Oh, yay, a hug.
Me: Yeah, I promised someone on Facebook I would hug a gay person today.
G/B Friend: Um, well, that's nice I guess... So wait, you didn't just spontaneously want to hug me? This is all for some stranger on the Internet??
Me: Well, I mean, um, I was trying to be sensitive! I mean, um... I'm sorry.
See? It's weird.
Actually, that's probably not what would happen. I don't think I'm going to see any of my gay friends/coworkers on Saturday, because I might not even leave the house (naps and tv, mmm). If I do go, say, go to the grocery store, and I decide to participate in this festivity of sensitivity I would have to hug a random gay person. And how might that play out?
Me: Hi, okay, so according to Facebook, today is Hug a Gay Day, so if you're willing I would like to hug you.
Gay Person: .....Um, well, this is awkward.
Yeah. So no.
Labels: laughing at the wrong moment, random, silliness, society
