Fun Should Remain Fun

Now that I have pondered upon it a little more, I’ve discovered yet another nugget [[[morsel]]] reason that I prefer to study science.  That there is another reason I do not want to *study* the creative pursuits, and most certainly why I do not want to enter any of them as a profession.

I like Biochem enough that I would be engaged and interested while at work.  But it is not my sole source of enjoyment in life.  It is intriguing, fascinating, sure.  It provides endless source [[[fount]]] of wonder, it satiates my curiosity, it feeds my drive to discover and learn, all that good stuff.  I study it so that I may unlock the secrets of the universe.  Arcane, long-hidden enigmae.

But it is not what I pour myself in, to relax in my spare time.  I do not grab a cup of tea, curl up on the couch, and read over my Biochem lab notes.  Wait, actually I do, but that is an essay for another day.

So I most definitely do enjoy Biochem as an academic subject, As a research topic of interest.  But here is the thing.  I am not so emotionally invested in it that I would ever be concerned that I would grow to resent it for mutating my fun, escapist hobby -> into a professional obligation.  I wish to keep it as a way to just relax, daydream, let my imagination run away wild with me, all that good stuff.

I would not grow to dread studying it for making me feel obligated for feeling dutiful, like I made a commitment and now, grumble grumble, I made a pact/contract/etc. and I have to stick to it.  Like I have a responsibility, like I made a commitment, like I will disappoint people if I don’t follow through.

I would not think to myself, “Oh woe is me, oh wherefore didst I ever studyeth Biochemistry?  Gentle vial, relieve me of my misery.”  None of that crap.  I readily accept Biochem as the type of subject that is sometimes boring yet mandatory.  Remember how when we were little, adults would tell us, “don’t expect to be enthralled in life at all times”?  Biochem is sometimes one of these non-enthralling things.

Whereas for me art exists purely for entertainment purposes.  Art is there to help me relax and unwind at the end of a long day at work and school.

I do not want to embroil myself in schedules, deadlines, meetings, or any some such nose-to-the-grindstone stuff.  Not when it comes to writing or painting.  I draw the line there.  I do not want to engage myself in Work mode within facets of my life that are meant for relaxation.  The purpose I engage in art and writing at all is that it is a creative outlet.  It is a way to blow off steam, to air my grievances and frustrations.  The way I see it, those are fun distractions, abstract interests, anyway.

It is not something that I see as any sort of drive to have focus, like something that I would approach with ambition.  As in, I would not gather a list of references.  I would not compile a meticulously detailed roster of skill sets, training, education that I use in resume cover letters into a written resume.  I would not have a painstaking dossier of accomplishments that I would skillfully craft into curriculum vitae.

__For the express purpose of NOTTT working.__

Poor, Meek, Oppressed Little People

Oh, so according to extremist liberals I'm this poor meek oppressed person brainwashed by the right-wing nutjobs, and worse than that I have come to repress myself.  *This is supremely insulting.  They never considered the fact that I consciously CHOSE not to engage in any of that flimdrim crap.

Liberals always preach "think for yourself."

And that oh gosh, oh if only you liberals would open my eyes to the possibilities, then this would set the caged little prisoner free and would be properly liberated.

You think that oh gosh if I only knew about it, then I would automatically genuflect to your [[[kowtow]] to your ideals and would no doubt definitely jump on the bandwagon.
--you truly honestly think that the only reason I do not___

Did it really never occur to you that I chose my standard of living of my own volition?

Look at this society.  Look at the nose on your face.  All around you, everyone where you go, shop, and look, all you see is sexx sells.  It is pervasive, like a really bad smell that corrodes the air.  I am already quite aware of all these so-called options, thank you very much.

For your information, I am very aware of the crap that exists out there in the ether.  As a matter of fact, this is precisely the **reason* that I do not entangle myself in any of that mess.  It is precisely *because* I see what is going on out there.

You never stopped to think that maybe, just perhaps, I *chose* not to do that.  I actively consciously purposely chose not to do any of that.  It is supremely insulting, not to mention a lie, to assume that the only reason I am not doing that stuff is that I am "ignorant" if it.

You know, for all your sanctimonious preaching about "ignorant" conservatives and how they do not know the truth, and how they are kept in the dark...  You know surprisingly little about the things about which you love to preach.  I have read news reports.  I have seen actual health and medical statistics and facts.  As a matter of fact, it is not too much of a venture of a gander to suggest that I probably know more than you do about these matters.  I am most likely far more informed on these topics than you are.

**On an unrelated note, I have minted the term "nutjob."  It is a good descriptive phrase.  The etiology was derived thusly.  We needed something new because "nutcase" was getting old and worn out.  It is similar to a nose job or a boob job, in that those are gruesome barbaric practices that are degrading and demeaning.  Also, I heard tell that some people back in the '90s used a phrase "McJob."  The Generation X slacker-losers using this phrase were trying to express their disdain for the notion that they should earn a decent, honest living.  As if anyone that <did> bother to procure a job was a hopeless conformist Dilbert.  They were wrong, because one does have to get a job and support oneself.  I never actually heard anyone use the phrase "McJob" in real life.  I read of it in some magazine after the turn of the century.

Senses Assaulted And Violated

I saw another editorial-opinion writer remark that the type of individuals that profess to like this filth like having their senses assaulted.

Yes, that is exactly what I am trying to say!  I agree completely.

You sick freaks like having your senses violated?  Fine, if you like being visually + psychologically brutalized, then have at it.  Celebrate the bisexual hermaphroditic midget Jerry Springer guest you aspire to become (Mad TV).  You claim that this mess is nothing more severe than simple “political incorrectness.”

Look, if it says “politically incorrect,” that means it is supposed to have something to do with politics, and how people interact + communicate w each other.  In other words, it should have some thought put into the concept, it should take some intelligence.

This however, does not have any intelligence; it's just plain stupid.  You just went for the lowest common denominator, just had a bunch of gross-out nasty stuff.  This is “not politically incorrect;” it's just plain gross.
You evidently think you are irreverent + cool by being that repulsive, but I don't.

So... basically you are saying that you have to constantly have the soul-crushing inflicted onto you.  You apparently derive some sort of sick pleasure from this beyond-depressing garbage.  You have probably unfortunately damaged your psyche thusly.
I just realized something.  I believe this is the same physiological effect that drug addicts have.  They have to have hits on a regular basis.  Otherwise, if they miss a hit, then the fake crystallization screen from the drug dissolves away.  And they are left with nothing but the [[unvisaged, shroud, meaning unclothed, undidden]]]] truth of their shattered, wasted life.  They do not want to face the factual disintegration of their health.  They require the constant psychosomatic stimulation from the drug to keep their true neurological activity from peeking through the haze.
--You sycophantic reviewers too need to constantly have that soul-crushing effect so that you don’t have to go for a few moments without that soul-crushing.  that way you don’t have any time to truly contemplate what that soul-crushing is doing to you, what crushing squeslhincg your sould is having sousch a horrific grusome effect on you.

Open-Mindedness Is A Joke Especially When It Comes To Movie Reviewers

I cannot believe there are so many self-proclaimed “open-minded” movie reviewers on the internet that claim, they swear up-and-down, they are positively <adamant,> I tell you, that they totally really do enjoy the gruesome, grimy excuses for “movies” that are polluting movie theatres.  They parrot that they are “not afraid to take risks.”

Let me guess, you absolutely loved it.  Miserable, depressing, bleak, pretentious, showing drug use as trashily disgusting and glamorous and something to aspire to.  You are jaded; irony-addicted; soul sucked out of you until there is nothing but a hollow shell.  Obviously a freak.  You like being emotionally raped, you enjoy being repulsed, nauseated.  Look at how much of a liberal apologist you are.  "This movie repulsed me at first, oh but then it didn't so it's okay that it did at first!  And I’m not at all saying that being repulsed and gagging and psychologically tortured and about to vomit is a bad thing!"

Geez, you make me sick.  Grow some standards.  You are basically a masochistic, self-beating (whatever Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter” priest did to himself), self-flagellating,

But instead of "punishing" yourself in this way, you have convinced yourself that it is some sort of pleasure.  Sitting through something that is just too incredibly disgusting, sick, bitter, hateful, mean-spirited.

I’ll have to borrow a critique method from the Victorian Age here.  Oh, yes, that outfit is dreadful because it has the ruffle in the wrong place. The color is simply inexcusable wrong on her.  The cut of the hem is wrong...  Okay, I can't keep up the charade.  You look like a freakin tramp!  What the hell is wrong with you? 
Don’t you know the difference between hip n’ cool -and- trashy tacky tawdry, cheap?  I'm neither, but damn, I know the difference.

“It was positively dreadful, that detail there, why did they use ketchup instead of chocolate syrup for blood, oh how awful?  Oh dearie me, the camerawork was rather shoddy in that scene, goodness dear, the movie is not able to fully portray all the characters' inner emotions.  Oh and that other one, it was simply horrid, must they put that brand of lighter fluid along with that shape of pipe?  Goodness me, that particular lead pipe would not form that indentation shape on a person’s skull.”

Okay, I can't keep up the charade any longer.  This movie sucks!

Why can’t I just come right out and say that I could not stand this body-snatcher changeling that has apparently abducted a genuinely good movie  and has assumed the good movie’s identity but failing at it?  Why is it considered unappreciative of pop culture, uncreative, unsophisticated if I say honestly and plainly that I hated this counter-culture trash?  I see philosobabble reviews everywhere insisting that critics not be allowed to debate the story, choice of plot, content of a movie, overarching theme.  Oh, the reviewers “approve” of people critiquing silly little throwaway details.  But they pigheadedly object if someone has a problem with the movie itself.
frankly

So you're saying you have problems with the delivery method.  Well, why shouldn't I have a problem with the content of a movie?
-Most of the reviews go like this.  “Oh, gosh, they're saying the movie is vile repulsive repugnant, how incredibly uncool they are.  What they should do is not be afraid to take risks, gosh they're so closed-minded; look how liberal and truly intellectual and forward-thinking I am.  I bring so much to the discussion, I am not afraid to take risks; I am so much more incredibly open-minded and have so much more freedom of thought because I enjoy movies with mass r-p- and killing and dismemberment.  Why can't they realize that movie directors and actors need to express themselves by depicting murdering and r-p-ng, they should not be afraid to take risks?”

“Ohmigosh it opens up all sorts of intellectual and political discussion.  Why can't you imagine a world with all r-p- and killing; are you that backwards and unable to be a free thinker and afraid to take risks?”
++
Why the hell should I?
++
"People that enjoy nice neat stories in films will be very disturbed watching this. People whose minds look for meaning in film portrayals will become more involved the longer the movie goes on."

Disclosing Even Worse

Oh, another one that I remember.  This next one is even worse, if that is even possible.  At least the "marriage" manipulation had an end goal in mind, as disgusting as the tactics might be.

It was like, she didn't want to be the bad guy or something.  (???)  So instead of telling the guy she wanted to break up with him....
She in that stead, starting acting like a really horrible gf.  She started acting all b-tchy and whiny.  The most disgusting versions of this were, a female cheated on her boyfriend, yup, being a slut.  Then that would force the male to break up with her.  Effectively putting all the responsibility and onus of initiating the break-up -- onto the guy.  She decided to make it <his> burden to terminate the relationship and leave.

Good god, man.  Does it never end?  Is there no limit to the depths of twisted dishonesty that people try to pull, out in the morass of the dating world?  This is just additional utter bs.  Just break up with the guy, already.  For once in your life, be honest and straightforward.  Try it, just once.

Then Dr. Phil said this manipulation business was "gutless, cowardly."  Yes!  Exactly.  That was exactly the sentiment I was trying to express.  And he said this was some "passive-aggressive" nonsense.  Oh, so that's what the term "pass-aggressive" means.  I had never bothered to learn the definition of that phrase, simply because I could tell from context that it was not any honest, straightforward behavior.  Even the phrase itself sounds like some wishy-washy melodrama.

Disclosing Shocking And Appalling Crap

These stupid women's mags keep revealing more and more crap that is shocking and appalling.  See, this is why I don't date.  The dating world is fraught with lies, trickery, and deceit.  Yep, men lie when dating.  But now it turns out, women lie almost as much as men do.  It appears they lie about different things.  But truly -- what difference does a trivial detail like that matter?  The fact is, everyone in the dating world just lies to everyone else.

There are a bunch of stupid, silly games that women play.  Too many women commit this weird sneaky, underhanded method of dating.  They are basically manipulative whores.  They are making a guy think that something was his idea, because the women are too dishonest to just come right out and say what they mean.  This is terrible.  Women are not being straightforward or honestly speaking their minds and voicing their concerns.

They are not discussing or addressing their concerns clearly with their "sex partner," boyfriend, whatever.

Like for example, these mags are fraught with dating stories where a female hung onto a guy.  And instead of clearly telling the guy point-blank that she was looking for marriage, she just kept trying to drive the guy crazy with desire, lust, etc.  In the vain hopes that the male would be so overcome with mad frenzy of desire, that he realized he simply could not live without her, and that he could not imagine a life or a future without her, and therefore he has no choice but to ask her to marry him.

Even worse, I think I read at least one "relationship advice" article that <advised> women NOT to mention marriage during the course of dating, ever.  Apparently this word scares guys away.

They are hoping that the guy will just fall madly in love head-over-heels for her, and that he will desire her so much that he will sweep her up and propose marriage to her.  And then she will secretly be cackling with glee, because this is what she wanted all along.  And she will have smug satisfaction that her sneaky, devious plan worked.

But, hang on a second.  If he's the kind of guy that is scared away by the mention of marriage, then why do you want to marry him?  If he hates the idea of marriage that much, then he probably would not make a good marriage partner.

Let's get one thing straight, anyone who is reading this.  I personally, ABSOLUTELY consider marriage a top priority.  I definitely want to get married.
I most certainly do consider__[[[[_____]]]]]
I'm in it for the long haul._[[____]]
This is why, if a guy asks me out on a date, like an actual date, one of the very first things I ask is, "Are you looking for marriage?"  If he sputters and stutters, that informs me that that was possibly the last thing on his mind.  I usually reply, "Okay, we can go out.  But it's not going to be a date.  We can hang out as friends always, and we will of course each pay for our own things."  It goes without saying that there is not going to be a hint of any intimacy.

I don't waste my time with the dating scene or the singles scene if I don't know for a fact that a person is not looking for marriage.  I'm not going to waste my time if I'm not going to get marriage out of it.  This attitude and approach of mine is actually very calming and relaxing.  There is absolutely no pressure, because I am completely honest from the get-go.  And in turn I fully expect a guy to be honest and straightforward with me, about what he is in a relationship for.  Is he expecting some sort of casual dating thing?  Then, no thanks, you're out.

I don't bother myself with any of that wishy-washy riffraff bs of, "ohhh I don't know if we should get married or not, something just isn't theeeerrrrrrrre, I want more passion," ad nauseum.  None of that on-again, off-again nonsense.  I consider all that inane mess to be a colossal, monumental waste of time.  I always have thought this; I have never harbored much patience for the dating scene.

Even Shania Twain said it, "I don't want you for a minute, I don't want you for a night, I'm only interested if I can have you for life."  That is as clear and succinct an expression of my intentions as I can hope for, and she even made it rhyme.

Plus, if marriage is that important to you, then why would you <not> bring up this topic of conversation?  I truly do not get this manipulative bs that women try to pull.

Aha, I see the progression.  And then apparently when it doesn't work, because the guy never wanted to get married at all or whatever, then she will start whining and bitching and crying and complaining, "oh men are such jerks, oh men are so immature and selfish, oh men don't want to make any kind of commitment," blah blah blah.

Well, let me ask you something.  Were you honest and straightforward with him?  Did you plainly state from the get-go that you were looking for marriage?  Were you honest with your intentions?

I do not understand why all these females settle for not being clear and straightforward in their dating lives.  I really do not comprehend why they would leave this major topic and important issue to luck or chance.  Actually, not quite; it's not "luck" or "chance."  What I should have written was, I cannot believe that women would be devious and manipulative whores regarding this major topic and important issue.

This is marriage/romance we're talking about here.  A lifelong commitment.  I cannot blv so many women [[[[______]]]][

Rather than trying to trick a guy into marrying you, why didn't you clearly state that you were in this for marriage in the first place?

The way I see it is, I would rather have a guy tell me from the very beginning whether he is in this for marriage or not.  If he is not, if he's just cruising and playing around, then he better tell me within five minutes of the first phone conversation.  That way I can easily identify him as a jerk, and I can dismiss him just as quickly.  The sooner I can eliminate from my life a guy that does not want to make any solid commitment, the better.  I do not want to waste my time nor energy on some guy that is not looking for the exact same mature, full commitment that I am looking for.

And guess what -- in order to make this discovery, YOU are going to have to bring up this conversation topic.  You should not have waited around like a meek, simpering female, and then whine about, "oh he never told me he wasn't looking for marriage."  Well, if it is truly so important to you to have a guy that DOES want to get married, then why didn't YOU ask him?

Isn't this common sense?  If it is a major top priority to you, then it is YOUR job to make sure you get straight answers.  The only way to do that is to be straightforward and honest yourself.

Morals And Emotions

The way I see it, morals and emotions are one and the same.

Note to you, dear reader:  If you are going to be physically intimate with someone, then you have to first establish emotional intimacy with that someone.  First and foremost.  Emotional intimacy is the most important thing.  I want to know what they do in their spare time, I want to know what kind of dreams they have, I mean like when they spell at night.  Do you attach much importance to dreams?  Or do you just figure, ehh this is a dream, don't read too much into it, just enjoy the ride?

To your date:  I want to know what their fifth grade teacher was like.  I want to know what they were like as a kid, did they watch cartoons, did they like making mud pies.  I want to know what his relationship is like with his family, with his mother, with his father, with his brothers and/or sisters.  Describe your relationship with each of these people individually.  As we all know, a person does not necessarily have the same relationship with all of their family members.

I am not forcing you to spill out all this stuff on the first date.  He can tell you all that at his own pace, whenever he feels comfortable.  There is no need to pressure him into anything.  But on the same token, that means that he doesn't get to pressure you into doing anything.  Until you know who the date is, you are not having sex.  Until you know who he is, he is a stranger.  Do not have sex with strangers.

You have to know this person and understand this person inside out.  You have to know what makes him tick, what kind of person is he, is he a good person.  Does he have good personal hygiene, generally good sanitation habits (like at home in the bathroom does he keep his bathroom clean or at least try to).  Does he give money to charity regularly, or does he do volunteer work from time to time?  What is the date's extended family like, is he close with his cousins and/or aunts and uncles?

What kind of hobbies do you have, do you like to read?  Do you like music, what genre of stuff do you like?

What genre of crowd were you a part of back in high school?  (I am not necessarily looking for a “popular” bmoc.  I myself was a peppy, happy, perky person with tons of school spirit who was all like, “Come on, gang!  We can do it!”  I was a total Beta Club nerd, AP courses, Honors and advanced science and math classes.  I was a huge fan of Sarah McLachlan and Lilith Fair, and I hung out with the alterna-cool crowd.  That means I dressed like a neo-hippie, and lurrvved those happy smiley faces and the whole “peace, happiness, harmony” theme that resonated throughout the 1990s.  Yes, it is possible to be all of these things at the exact same time.)

To your date:  What job do you have?

To you:  Contrary to what a lot of people think, a job *does* define a person. You can gauge a lot of information about a person based on what job he/she picked.  You can tell what their passions are, their interests.  Also this is what they consider stable and realistic enough to invest an enormous amount of time and energy, and to pursue for the long haul.

Does he have any chemical dependencies, is he a drunk or a druggie or a chimney, is he a gambler, i.e., someone w horrible self-discipline and no self-respect.

I have to have a good sincere friendship, a solid foundation for the relationship.  That is crucial.  And then, only AFTER you two have discussed it and talked about, "Where do we see this relationship in five to ten years?"  And AFTER you have decided and agreed that this is a long-term monogamous sustained relationship, and yes that means marriage.  Only then are you truly comfortable and secure enough to go forth with the physical intimacy all the way.

Still Not A Renegade Trailblazer

More of the hackneying in fiction re:  female stock characters

On Start Trek: The Next Generation, there were only two women characters.  One of them is the resident medical doctor on the ship, so I guess that's good.  The other one, the really gorgeous one, is supposed to be a psychologist or something.  Feh.  Well at least she is brunette, so Star Trek has that going for them.

There's another Star Trek that has a lady captain, Captain Janeway, which is pretty cool.  There is a subtle touch that I don't know if everyone picked up on-- the captain's surname is originated from a woman's name, Jane, rather than most surnames that are derived from men's names, such as Thomas or Williamson.  Nice nod to trivial white-people stuff.  I believe this same Star Trek has a Klingon woman as the ship's chief engineer.  I think it's neat that we finally have an important woman character who is of an alien race and not some boring middle-class white girl.  That's pretty cool.  I think the engineer has, like, anger management issues or something, which is not ideal, but it's good that she has an actual personality instead of being the popular-and-well-liked-by-everyone type.

...Aaand then they also stuck a sexy hot chick character in there.  It's rather pathetic and telling that the producers decided to "compensate" for the intelligent, capable, strong female characters by putting a sex object there.  It's like they thought, "we don't want people to think we respect women to too much of an extent, so let's also put something that will please sexist pig-dog males."

There is a character called "Neelix," a weird-looking little alien dude who is really nice and sweet and weird-looking.  He has a crush on a normal-looking, very pretty human.  Couldn't he have found a woman from an alien race like him, who is also sweet and kind and with whom he has much more in common?  There is a character called "Worf," I think, who is a stern, gruff-looking dark-complexioned alien.  At one point he marries a normal-looking, very pretty human.  I don't buy that she is an alien.  She has a couple of spots on her nose which could be attributed to simple birthmarks; nothing approaching any alien ancestry.

Similar, but perhaps not quite to that exaggerated extent, with K.A. Applegate's Animporphs books.  I know they are marketed as children's books, but they are so much fun and they are really well-written.  Except for the part wherein these books have only two main characters that are girls, yet four main characters that are boys.  All the kids are about middle-school or young high-school age.  The Animporh boy characters are complex, multi-layered, fascinating.

One of them is an alien from a supposedly benevolent alien race, but this race is revealed to be more and more meddling, misinformed, and having bad judgment as the series progresses.  As you might have guessed, this boy is permanently separated from his family.  One of the boys comes from a really shitty background of both parents deserting him, being ferreted from one relative's custody to another, then from foster home to foster home.  This boy becomes permanently trapped in a hawk physical form.  This boy is probably the most interesting as well as tragic of all the characters, and I am constantly blown away by how he and his experiences are written.  One boy is Mexican something-or-other, lives in a bad neighborhood, and also comes from sort of a broken home.  This guy gets to be more and more of an ahole as the series progresses.

There are tons of important supporting characters, the ones whose existences explain the whole entire massive back story of this Animorph universe and drive the plot forward.  The vast, vast majority of them are male.  These are benevolent aliens, evil aliens, evil aliens disguised as humans, good humans.

The girl characters still reflect that unfortunate typesetting talked about earlier, in which female characters depicted in pop culture are conveniently placed in an either/or dichotomy.  One is an adequate blonde popular princess and the other girl is black.  Shrug.  The black girl, Cassie, is pretty awesome.  She and her parents run an animal rescue center on their farm, and this farm has been in their family for several generations.  Cassie gives the group of kids access to the animals so that they can acquire animal forms.  No animals are harmed in the process of "acquiring."  She is the most naturally talented of the kids to be able to morph into different animal forms.  It is revealed that this is because she has a certain commune with nature.  That is pretty neat.  (Like I said, it is a fascinating series to read.)

The hawk boy, the one with the most heartbreaking story, of course has a crush on the popular blonde girl.  Feh.  The popular girl's tragic, heartbreaking back story is... that her parents are divorced.  That's it.  El fin.  Feh.

Wait, hang on.  I forgot there is one other female character who is fascinating.  She is a Yeerk, one of the evil alien race that is hell-bent on universe domination.  One book of the series was devoted to this character essentially arguing with Cassie (the black girl) about what is the true nature of species dominance, war, vegetarianism vs. carnivore-ianism, environmentalism, human progress, aliens taking over the world.

The discussion was shocking, mind-blowing, bitter, jaw-dropping to behold, and it made me realize certain things about myself.  It made me realize that I am okay with one species dominating, and that saving a freaking spotted hummingbird is a waste of time compared to saving humans.  This is the book in which it was threatened that Cassie would be trapped permanently as a butterfly.  The lady Yeerk character brought up a wealth of complex, controversial topics on which to ponder, in this one book.  And then we never heard from this character again.

I am pretty sure the author only made this character female because the readers kept haranguing her for more female characters.  Which they have done, if you frequent any internet message boards devoted to this book series, you will witness numerous readers, boys and girls, who want this.  Seriously, judging by the author's attitude towards female characters of any kind, let alone intelligent strong female characters, it is obvious she does not like having characters that are women.

Humility is Overrated

I don't believe in false modesty.  If you're good, you better know you're good.

I see quite a few people who exaggeratedly act like they are all humble and crap.  If other people start lauding this particular person and listing this one's accomplishments and their contributions to the network, then this person-of-interest starts acting all embarrassed and blushing, and they say -- out loud -- “oh I'm not that great.”

Then people start reassuring them that this is true and they just don't know themselves, and if they would just have the self-esteem, and if they would just start believing in themselves they would reach the sky which is the limit.

Here is what I believe is the hidden but genuine truth.  A person that does that is simply fishing for compliments.  They are not *truly* so naive and unknowing or unaware of themselves.  You must know that they are secretly cackling in glee about like, oh look I am projecting such a [[[[modest, humble]]]] public image of myself, oh look it is such a sneaky underhanded tactic [[[ploy, gimmick]]]] to use because I get to act all sweet innocent, unassuming, and everyone else feels like they are being such great supporters and showering with compliments and helping me to see what I was blind to before.  And they feel all incredulous, like oh how did this person get to be so talented and amazing while still keeping their head on the ground, or something like that.

This is all is quite irritating.  I feel that that is actually worse than what I endorse of thinking highly of oneself.  At least I am being honest.  At least I am not sitting here pretending that I am so innocent and sweet and cutesy and humble.  At least when I am good, I know I am good.

The Good, The Bad, And The Unimprovable, or Behavioral Disruptions In Public Schools

The good is almost never able to influence the bad to improve.  Quite the contrary, the bad very often/frequently pulls the good down to its level down in the gutter.

Case in point:  misbehaving, rabble rousing kids in the classroom only disrupt the class and cause trouble.  The mere presence of the good kids that want to pay attention, to learn the subject matter, and to get good grades does not magically somehow make the bad kids stand up and fly straight.

Nope.  This is because the authority, i.e., the teacher, spends so much time cleaning up after the bad kids, that she does not have any time remaining to teach and improve the good kids.

Then you hear the incessant whining.  Then the popular psychologists whinily shoot back and ask, "well why don’t the good kids helllpppp the bad kids?  Help them understand, help them comprehend the subject matter?  Explain it to them?  Take the time, take the effort to do the charity work."  Be more "selfless," be more "caring.”

Your concerns are duly noted.  Let me now return a question to you.  Why is it always incumbent on the good kids that excel, to always help out the bad kids?

This is an esoteric concept that a lot of people do not get.  They think that the good ones are *obligated* to help the bad ones no matter what...  But in the process, the good ones sacrifice their *own* futures.

That right, kids.  In an attempt to help the crappy students so as to make sure the crappy ones are not neglected or whatever, the good kids do a disservice to themselves.  They end up neglecting themselves.  After all, a human being only has so much time and energy.  if that time and energy expenditure is used up on nonessential focus__

This is something that very few of those advocates-for-extra-education-help-to-juvenile-delinquents seem to "get."  They do not comprehend it.  [[education authorities]]]

Why is it only noble to help others?  Why is it never considered morally "good" to make sure oneself is taken care of?  Why is it never considered noble for a person to want to improve their own lot in life?

If a person takes active steps to secure their own future, this is for some reason considered “selfish” by many in this culture.

They think that if someone helps another at the detriment to their own well-being, this is somehow morally superior.  This is considered "better," a more grand gesture than if that same someone makes sure their own life is secure and set.
Why is this evil/selfish/etc.?  Why is it always considered a "bad" thing to make sure oneself is taken care of?

If I, being one of the good students, make sure I plan for my own future, I should not be demonized.  I am not taking anything away from the bad kids.  Altruism is great -- once in a while.  But It should not be a defining guidance for how the smart kids should conduct their lives.
[[[villain-ized  [[castigated.]]] [[chastised---NOPPE, used already]]]
=
We should be fostering that talent in the good kids.
should be guiding it, channeling it through training and education
helping focus that raw material talent into  (boil it down to its absolute essentials)
refining the crude oil into something valuable that will benefit that individual student, as well as society.
help target it??

Irritating Excuses for Non-Commitments

Oh, gosh, they just couldn't get married for some bull3h + reasons, so heart-aching, so sweet, whispering sweet nothings, anguish-inducing reasons.

Man, shut the hell up.  Shit like that just irritates me. I have no patience for it.  Either you are in a complete whole relationship together, or you are not, ever.  I want all of you or none of you at all.

I'm not going to tolerate any of that on-again off-again, "ehh, we're sort of in a relationship, but sometimes we're not; it's complicated."

You know what?  No, it's not.  You’re the one overcomplicating something that could very easily be straightforward.  The male equivalent of the girl who gets her life advice from cosmo.  Wimpy-assed bit-h.

Sigh.  Look, I am trying my damnedest to drum up some goddamn bitterness and/or hatred for males that put females through this.  But the fact of the matter is, any woman that finds herself in this type of situation has no one but herself to blame.  I'm sorry if that might be harsh, but it is what I firmly believe.  That is because it is the gospel truth.

If I have to hear another female complain about this 3hi+ that they put up with from their non-boyfriends.  Pain in the ass, liberal arts degree, really supports your college athletic team and expects his girlfriend to do the same.  But is he contributing anything to society?  No.

The <male> version of the whiny-assed, middle class, racist, pain-in-the ass, white girl.  I didn't think they existed.  But now I know.  Scared, graspish, shrinking back in fear, owner of weak dead flaccid handshakes.  When they go to shake your hand, these wimpy-assed no-actual-shake-to-their-handshake, they just let you sort of grab their fingertips and you have to do all the heavy lifting.

Are you any good at all at interacting with people outside of your precious little bland drab potato-salad bubble?  Forget black.  We know you don't want to know a single black person.  That’s a given, that's not news to anybody.  But have you at least met an Asian person at some point in your life?  Or perhaps a Peruvian?  Or Mongolian?  Or Canada Inuit?  The few times in their life that they have to encounter a non-middle-class-white person, like the person behind the counter at the grocery store, they fervently avoid eye contact.  They expend energy and go out of their way not to look you in the eye.

Let Us Talk About Comparisons

As well as falsehoods regarding comparisons.  We need to tackle the nefarious concept that all choices in response to a situation somehow have equal merit.  And the magnified repercussion of this, which is that all choices in the grand scheme of life have equal merit.

"Just because you are educated (do this) doesn’t make you better than me."  "They say it makes you a better person, but it doesn’t."
Just because you come from a good, well-respected family doesn’t make you better than me.

What?  That is a very laughable, comical argument.  Because uh, yeah, actually, it kinda does.  Well, what else is there?  Is there some other much better canon of exemplarity you can offer that *would* actually determine the goodness of a person? ((go to church are hypocrites, think they are better than everyone else;

-not have sexx before marraige makes you a better person, but it doesn’t.))

"Just because you waited to get married first and <then> had a kid, doesn't make you better than me."
Actually, it kind of does.
-“Jusr bc you never been arrested ((for public drunkenness, or beeein in jail for any other degenerate behavior) doesn’t make you better than me.”
Ah, no, actually it kind of does.
-“just bc you didn’t drop out of high school doesn’t mean you are better than me.”
-“just bc you went to college doesn’t make you better than me.”

Well, why stop there?  Why not continue the list?  "Just because you’re nice to people and considerate of their feelings doesn’t make you a better person."  "Just because you do a lot of charity and volunteer work doesn’t make you a better person."

You say you are going to make something of yourself.  So you are bettering yourself because you are going to start your own business.  Well, he is improving upon himself because he is going to college.  Oh, so starting a business is better than going to college?