Indie and Violent Movies

I guess this bit is more of an indie and violent movie thing.

What in the world is everyone so afraid of, that they can't come right out and say exactly what they are thinking?

Are they afraid they won't be perceived as sophisticated and haute couture?  Avante garde?  Who exactly are they trying to impress?  I just can't figure it out.  Are they afraid their true nature of being a boring middle-class white kid from suburbia with white picket fences and minivans will be revealed?  Yes, they are boring and they know it.  They are painfully aware of it, otherwise they wouldn't be so hellbent on proving the exact opposite.

Shrug.  I am from that same suburbia.  I'll admit it, I don't care.  What do I care what indie movie directors think of me?
Is it just more of the same old, same old adolescent rebellion against everything stable, upright, normal?  Only now it is inflated to gigangumongous proportions?

This is probably why so many of them profess to lurrrrrrvvvveee indie movies.  I personally find them bleak, depressing, miserable.  Then of course the sycophantic fanboys put on a show of howling in laughter and claiming, """oh look how formulaic and predictable you are, look how mainstream you are,, look how much___]]]  I am sooo much more open-minded, enlightened, world-class than you.""

----((((( put sepp essy dont knoww)))  [[[[okayy you do realize this is just a movie?  Just because you are watching it does not mean you are [[[[genuinely experiencing the events therein.
[[[[it is my turn to laugh at you.  you bunch of poseurs.  Living vicariously through your movie(((( NONO THERE SHOULD BE A LOT MORE;;; elaborate))))
--- that's laughable.  You want toughness?  1.Go try to survive in real-life low-income govt housing projects.  You want to prove how hood, street, gangsta, etc. you are?  2.Go join the military.  (Yeah, right, a bunch of fantasy indie movie directors enlisting in the military.)  2b.Go try to hold up a police station.  [[[do a frw more examples]]]]
--- Yyou silly little middle-class white kids would not last two seconds in that environment.  Again, neither would I.  Again, at least I admit it.

They keep saying crap like, "this is free speech," "this is freedom of expression."
But woe to the person that honestly says what they think of that """clockwork ornge,""" ""sopranos,"" hiwdr stern, or these sick vile video games that have infested pop culture.
Say one tepid word about the mafia movies, and you will be met with threats of bodily harm, disembowelment, dismemberment, gruesome torture executed onto your person.  At the hands of gleeful torturers and jailers that take sordid pleasure in it.  Fantasizing about inflicting severe physical injury onto others just because of a goddamn movie opinion.

An Alternate Universe Might Be More Realistic

Some idiot was saying it would be a positive change if the world were more accepting of girls to express their sexuality.

Hmmm, yes, fascinating, fascinating.  Perhaps someday we can envision an alternate universe in which women are allowed to express their dignity, class, and self-respect.  An alternate universe in which women are allowed to have some morals and standards and are not dismissed as being politically incorrect for it.  A universe in which women are not judged by their sexual habits.  A universe in which women are not judged as being backwards/old-fashioned/repressed/etc. just because they don't allow anything with two-and-a-quarter legs to mount them.  A universe in which women acknowledge the fact that sexuality is a private, personal matter that should deserve a bit of respect if women want to keep some of it to themselves.

Perhaps we can imagine a universe in which women finally snap awake and realize, hey, this is a personal matter -- it is nobody else's damn business.

Geez, it's like people have never heard of Gloria Allred or something.  What the hell have old-school feminists been fighting for all these years?  I thought we have been working hard to gain equal treatment, respect, and acknowledgment as able minds.  This is in the professional workforce, in the political arena, in all fields of scholarly achievement.

What was the point if now these so-called neo "feminists" are breaking it all down by sheer doublespeak, gullibility, and ignorance?  (I really resent their being allowed to use this vocabulary term, because I really feel that it does not apply to them.)  How the hell can us feminists expect to be taken seriously as university professors and conductors of biomedical research and court judges if we still have to climb against this crap?

You probably think you are better than women that choose not to sleep around and who do judge people that do sleep around.  (For the record, those of us who judge, we judge both men and women, we are not sexist as in judging only women).

You are exactly the same as neo-conservatives who judge women based on their sexuality.  Cons think a woman who sleeps around is not worth wasting breath on.  And you are exactly the same.  You think a woman who chooses NOT to sleep around is not worth wasting breath on.  How are you any better than extremist ultra-conservatives that force women to wear prairie dresses and/or burkas?

How the hell are you any better?  You are _still_ seeing women as sex objects and judging them based on what their output of sex is.  That is none of the conservatives' business.  But guess what -- it is none of your damn business either.

Look, you can lie to the teeming festering males that egg you on and grope for more and more.  You can lie to the morasses of other females that have fallen for this crap.  You can even lie to yourself.

But you don't get to lie to us.  We women are the old-school feminists, who have the ethos and the pathos.  We have the innate authority and intelligence grown from years of studying psychology, history, and current events.

And yes, make no mistake -- you do have an attitude of forcing women into it.  We can tell by your own account because your reaction was that of fury.  Not a reaction of mild disappointment, not of annoyance, not even, "oh well, that's her opinion but I'll just keep doing my thing because I am perfectly satisfied being a sinner and a w---," -- but full-on fury.  That is perplexing and exasperating.  I have made the suggestion that perhaps girls should have the option to show some spine, stand up for themselves, and demand more from society and from themselves --- and your reaction is to be infuriated??  I just don't get it.

You call that more "freedom?"  It is not.  Forcing people into more of that brand of so-called "freedom" is as bad as oppression.  Worse-- it is abuse.

Because if they are oppressed, i.e., prevented from exercising freedom, e.g., drugs and promiscuity, then they might be grumbling about it.  But let's be honest here, they are still better off for it.  They might be a little ticked off, but their emotional and physical health are all still intact.  On the flip side, if someone is forced into more "freedom" (loose behavior, etc.), we have a word for that:  r-p-.  Forcing "freedom" on people is the same thing as tyranny.

CEOs And Women's Empowering Careers

Something else is not quite sitting right with me either.  This has to do with the intentions of the types of jobs reported on in the news.

Time and Newsweek magazines are fraught with stories about fatcat embezzling CEOs.  They discuss at length the obscene exorbitant salaries that CEOs receive.  There is Enron, there is Viacom, ad nauseum.  These CEOs have not earned a penny of this salary.  So we know that bearing the title "CEO" is not automatically worthy of commendation.

But what, if a woman is an embezzling CEO, that is suddenly okay?  If a woman does it, it is suddenly a harbinger of happiness and tidings of good fortune for generations to come?

I think most people are astute enough to be aware that it is the foot soldiers of a company doing the actual work.  The lower level employees, secretaries, etc. are the ones actually running the company.  They are the ones building the products, arranging meetings, making phone calls, taking messages, etc.  The higher up someone moves in the stratification, the less substantial and genuine work they do.

Yet women's magazines are trying to tell us it is an outrage that more women are not promoted to higher-level managerial positions.  They try to give sermons about how women should be more aggressive in the boardroom.

I've seen a few comparison lists and T-charts that compare *exactly* the kind of salaries that a woman would make at typical businesses/corporations.  These are as compared with a man who works a similar job at a similar sized company, has similar authoritative and supervisory position in the hierarchy of the rank and file (if applicable).  The man has similar job duties and responsibilities, similar background experience, similar education and "training."

But here's the thing.  What is this "work" they are doing that is so damn important?  Let us look at the actual nature of the job.  So we've established that the foot soldiers are doing the "work" as it were.  So frakin what?  Mega corporations.  It's just administrative, bureaucratic crap.  It's not like it's actually important.

It does not have any noteworthy, significant, positive contributions to society.  There is no notable, commendable impact on society.  It's just paper pushing.  Corporate office crap.  Standing around the water cooler chatting about yesterday's episode of "Buffy the vampire slayer."  There is no actual skill involved.

These are all in essence crap jobs that clog up the economy airwaves.  So even though these are mere auxiliary window-dressing jobs in the first place, people are supposed to be outraged that women are not being ushered in with open welcoming arms into the upper echelons of the crapp company.

This might possibly be a reason it has never bothered me that there are not more women CEOs.  Guffaw.  CEO of what exactly?  A multinational mega-corporation that advertises and goads people into buying crap they don't need, using money they don't have?

Perhaps this is just the arrogant scientist facet of me talking, but...  Re:  the glass ceiling.  And I know a sizable population of feminists do mention girls entering math and science in the same breath that they mention administrative corporate stuff.  But they are not the same thing, not even close.

Boardroom meetings, managerial crap, job promotions, climbing up the corporate ladder, the "rat race" as they say.  Here's the thing.  All this 'managerial' stuff is fake anyway.  It is fake when men do it, and it is fake when women do it.

So what is the point in aiming for that, having that as a goal to set in one's sights, when all it does is suck you deeper into the muck and mire of junk?  Or actually, not deeper, but rather further up the tornado of useless jobs that do nothing but clog up the economy?

The Purpose Of Higher Education

I am noticing a very strange attitude that people display in their interpretations of the purpose of higher education.  Specifically, they have established a weird little DICHOTOMY that has the contenders as Higher Education *versus* Working.

This would by necessity delve into the reasons whyyyy people pursue higher education.  Is it to secure their futures by training for complex jobs?  Or it is just to learn random stuff, factoids, tidbits??

[[[[sniff haughty disapproval
in the process of obtaining a college degree
That's so plebeian.     ((((VOICE MEMO look at))

With the tooootally astounding! shocking!, completely unexpected! end goal of actually getting a freakin' job.  (In place of the exclamation points, picture those old onomatopoeia interjections from the 1960s Batman TV show.)

mind-bending purpose of____

unforeseen
heretofore unseen end goal
of actually *getting* a job.]]]]]]

They think that concrete disciplines necessitate the characteristic of simplicity.  Like the skilled labor trades___

two different weird little [[[interpretations]]]]] that combine into a double whammy to make middlle class whites entirely unemployable.
[[two diff weird little [[subconscious that unintentionally repels them away from ,__ that attack from differne angles of their psyche, which converge to make them avoid liearning the skilled labor trades.
they think it is too gross and too much hard work; why suffer through that indignity if they don't have to;
and they think it is much too simple, and their bourgeoisie minds are far too valuable to waste on that plebeian trivia.
------
...Learn one of the skilled trades...
They think they are too good to work with their hands___  Eeeeeeeeewwwwyooooouuuuuu, touching a carburetor?  Gross.  Touching a patient?  Gross.
They think that they are above doing any physical labor.

Something Has Been Nagging Me About So-Called Career Women

Something has been gnawing at my logic radar every time I read about a woman that claims she wants to focus on her career.

Pick up a women's magazine in the checkout aisle of the grocery store.  Doesn't matter which one, they're all the same.

They are all quoted as saying something like, "'I missed out on love because I am focusing on my career."  Or, "I haven't had a chance to work on my relationship because I focusing on my career."  Or, "my relationship is in the toilet because I am prioritizing my career too much."  Or a handy-dandy quick-reference favorite claimed by many of them:  "Men are intimidated by me because I am a strong career woman in charge of my own life."  This has been going on for several years now.

Same thing with the chick flicks in theaters.  You know, the movies we are supposed to hail and laud as being bastions of feminism and girl power because the women are all career women.  I guess females are supposed to hold their hands over their hearts in salute anytime they hear another female say she takes her career too seriously to be able to devote time and effort into a serious relationship.

There was that crank-fest "what women want" that Mel Gibson and Helen Hunt subjected people to.  From the promos alone I knew that were I to watch it, I would contract a stroke from rolling my eyes so much.  I'm not sure how I eventually ended up watching it; maybe I caught it on cable or something.  In this movie, Helen Hunt's character is supposed to be a relatable figure because she is nearing forty and was married for six months at one point.  (Crickets chirping.)  So what, you want sympathy from me or something?  Get off your tuffet and go fix your life.  There was, however, a fictional Nike commercial within the movie that was pretty kick-ass.

Look at the types of quote-unquote "careers" they talk about.  In the stupid chick flicks that are an insult to my intelligence, in the women's mags.  It's just corporate bureaucratic crap.

Publishing Design.  Garbledygook in Advertising.  Marketing.

Crickets chirping.  So... it's not like you are a nuclear chemist or an astrophysicist.  And there is certainly never one quoted as being a teacher or nurse.  (You know, one of the foundational necessities for our civilization.)

It’s all... fluff.  Insubstantial meaningless crap.  What the eff is a Fashion Marketing Consultant?

Okay.  Out of curiosity, marketing what, exactly?  Is it perhaps your own revolutionary product that is a marvel of technological innovation that surpasses anything the human race has ever witnessed before, that will vastly improve our lives and make the world a better place??  No, it's advertising junk.  More importantly, it is advertising other people’s junk.  Peddling other people’s wares.

This fluffiness is the case with a lot of careers (ehh...) that characters hold in pop culture [[bits, curios, trivios]]] that females like.  The chick from “sex and the city” writes a gossip column for a magazine or something.  Other chick flicks have jobs in publishing and junk.

((Crickets chirping.))  THIsss is what you hail as being worthy of monikering yourself an independent, career-minded woman that does not need to depend on a man?  This is what you proudly stake your claim on, declare as your territory, and proudly declare that you are a trailblazer pioneer woman?

This is what you declare that qualifies you as being a strong capable woman in charge of your own life who does not need marriage to define you?  Really??

So... it's not as though you are working anything actually useful like pharmacy or engineering?  These jobs here, I can understand putting marriage and family on hold so that one can pursue.  Math and science majors, and the subsequent careers they prepare one for, require quite a bit of dedication.  One really cannot afford to be distracted with screaming babies and marital quibbles when one's concentration is needed for a complex college major.

However, the "careers" that the majority of glamour mag readers and romantic comedies report as occupying -- are mostly meaningless drivel.  They are insubstantial fluff jobs.  It’s just more corporate, executive crap.  Look, I hate to say it, but perhaps you would have a more meaningful, fulfilling life if you had in fact decided to get married and devote your life to taking care of a family.  You would have contributed a hell of a lot more to society if you had raised a family.

Wait, wait, no.  I just realized upon typing this -- I take that back completely.  I rescind my prior comment for the following reasons:  the vast majority of females in glamour mag, cosmo, redbook, etc. are self-destructive whores.  They do a whole lot of promiscuity crap, they have horrible judgment, they have probably racked up a laundry list of STDs.  So perhaps it is best if they did not foist this type of woefully neglectful personality onto an innocent, vulnerable, unsuspecting child.

It should be noted that middle-class white <guys> are not a whole lot better.  They fare about the same in terms of choosing career longevity that is useful and might make their student loans worthwhile after all, etc.  They, too, are choosing college majors and career paths that are equally as [[[meaningless,fluffffffff,___]]] as the girls.  They are every bit as ignorant of planning for their futures as the silly little females.  After all, they are the ones exchanging venereal diseases with the girls, they are the ones refusing to make any commitments same as the females; all that mess.

Broadcasting.  What the eff does that mean?  Then they spiral into some mishmashed crap, some insubstantial mush.
<<This>> is what you think is sooo important that you devoted four years of your life and wasted forty thousand dollars of your parents' money?  It is so boring and lifeless that I often end up staring into space.

Crickets chirping.  Sooo, again, not anything actually important like chemical engineering.  Or you don’t work for a charity organization perhaps, or healthcare.  So, you are not contributing anything to society.

Correspondence Courses

TV/VCR repair, air conditioning, refrigerator, HVAC, all those silly little night classes that are available at vocational schools.  correspondence classes that advertise their offerings [[wares]] in little classified ads in the newspaper or in those little local regional magazines.

You know what I'm talking about, those little coupon clipper magazines that feature ads from local businesses.  Okay, they're not quite coupons; more like discount savings from those local businesses.  The booklets are usually available at the grocery store right next to the newspaper.

The middle-class white kids probably laughed at those and poked fun at people pursuing those <adorable> little livelihoods.  But lo and behold-- now it turns out that the people who pursued those "funny adorable" little trades are a hell of a lot more useful to society than you are.  Imagine that.

Why Do Men Hate Themselves?

I have always been far more worried about girls' well-being, I suppose because they still have potential to improve.  Their souls are still mostly intact, might be a few scratches and scars, but that's about it.  Not broken, bloody, abused, beaten.  I secretly harbored a strange notion that girls are on many levels, better than boys.  They are cleaner, they are less corrupt, they are more "pure."

It was such a weird secret that I kept it hidden from myself.  I should not do this.  I usually do practice what I preach.  But I need to enact the finishing touches.

Either one is not an okay manner in which to perceive the world.  That is why I actively work to make myself understand that both are equally responsible for making sure that they do not ruin their lives with promiscuity and carelessness.  They are both equally responsible for bringing a fetus into the world that they have absolutely zero intention of taking care of.  And, I <should> be equally as concerned if a boy falls into this kind of careless laissez-faire behavior as I do if a girl slips into the social cracks.

I realized back in high school that all that nonsense about men calling slutty women "sluts" is not actually quite accurate.  Men did not lob the insult of "slut" that often.  Women in fact were the ones that had the conspicuous conflict with sluts.  I will be honest, I don't really have a problem with that.

On a purely instinctual level, I can understand why women might feel this way.  They are females after all; they do not possess male genitalia, it is physically a foreign object that they might regard with suspicion.  And instinctively women would be suspicious of a woman that is too comfortable with an invading object.  That is the instinctive primitive origin of the fact that women mostly do not approve of sluts.  (Or at least they didn't used to; I don't know what is going on nowadays.)  A higher-plane-of-existence explanation would be that it is simply gross because it completely ignores all medical documentation of STDs and unwanted pregnancies.  Also the whole emotional connection thing is kinda important.

But I do not understand why men would feel this way.  Why would men be disgusted by a female that has genital contact with a bunch of different men?  Why would men be disgusted by a female that touches a lot of penises?  Don't men have penises?  Don't they like penises?  Same oddity with how men regard gay men.  For the record, I am not defending gays one way or the other.  I am making the observation that gay men are seen as being just as sick, nasty, depraved as slutty females.  And by the by, according to a lot of the medical literature, gay men are extremely promiscuous.

I was standing here puzzled, scratching my head, when a weird thought occurred to me.  The only explanation that can be interpolated from all that is the following:  It seems that men hate themselves.  That seems to be the only logical conclusion that fits the aforementioned weird facts.

And as if that weren’t bad enough, why has popular society and general culture decided that now it is okay for girls to be emotionally damaged and broken, and to re-wrap it up, package it, and sell it as the new girl power?

It’s true, this particular quote from Paula Poundstone -- comical reference, I know, but appropriate.  "I hate women.  Instead of reaching our potential, we are tied to the thought that we want to do what men do.  That’s why cigarette and tobacco companies target us."

Wait -- I just remembered something.  We DID call men on their bullshyte before.  We addressed the fact that they are pigs and dogs and players and aholes.  But now, somehow that has disappeared from anyone's conscious memory.  A lot of girls feel the need to "empower" themselves by turning just as whory as boys have heretofore gotten a bad rap for being.

So what the hell happened?  Is it the dreaded, "if you can't beat em, join em" mentality?  Are we going to get some sh-t psychobabble pseudo-philosophy about the changing times and the new generation and changing societal mores?  Have boys started to wear those insults without my knowledge nor permission -- players, dogs, etc. -- as emblems of pride?  Are girls seeing this and deciding that they too want to take on those degrading adjectives as badges of honor?