Vegetarianism And Cooking

I was thinking about my previous essay a little more, and another realization occurred to me.

I think I finally figured out why so many middle-class white kids, especially teenage girls, claim they want to be vegetarian.

Perhaps the real reason people are vegetarian-- is something ludicrously, stupendously, astoundingly, misleadingly simple:  It is very difficult to cook meats.  It requires much more effort, skill, precision, attention, and labor to cook any meats than it does to cook vegetables.

With vegetables, one does not have to devote nearly the same amount of time, effort, or ability
There is really not any skill required to cook vegetables.  Just make sure they don't burn.  And if they do burn, ehh whatever, just eat it.  They're undercooked, not a big deal; they're overcooked and a little mushy, not a big deal.

Veggies are undercooked and a little stiff, ehh not a big deal.  That's roughage, good for your intestines.  Aren't raw vegetables supposed to be good for you?  Humans subsisted and survived for tens of thousands of years without cooking vegetables all the way.  No risk of sickness the way there is if chicken is undercooked.  Not going to be infected with salmonella or shigella and contract horrible food poisoning.

They're overcooked and a little mushy, ehh not a big deal.  Half the chewing work is done for you.  They'll go down more easily, whatever.

And so, to try to make themselves not sound so lazy or scared, vegetarians start spewing some crap about animal rights.

I realized this because I'm scared to cook meats for the reason that I am afraid I would mess it up.  I was pondering this and rationalizing it.  And I began seriously considering if I could make it as a vegetarian.  With all nutritional requirements, vital nutrients, essential amino acids, minerals that are all required for a healthy normal diet.

And then, ding!  It hit me.  This is why people want to be vegetarian.

Feminism And White Girls And How This Relates To Household Chores

Look, I know this is going to sound racist, but I feel that middle-class white kids are spoiled brats.  I attended high school with a great number of them, I attended college with a great number of them, and I read in the news about a great number of them.

Let me reiterate that these are *middle-class* kids, not rich kids.  Yet they are every bit as thinking they should be pampered and privileged, and thinking they are entitled to luxurious comforts and leisures as the worst stereotypes of rich kids.

And I have noticed that in some ways (not in many ways, but in some ways), middle-class white girls are more spoiled than middle-class white boys.  I have encountered so many whiny, racist, conceited, pain-in-the-ass, stuck-up-their-ass, anal retentive, middle-class white girls in my time.

They do not want to do any cooking or cleaning around the house.  They do not want to help their parents around the house with any responsibilities such as washing the dishes, taking out the trash, vacuuming, etc.  Oh, but they sure as hell talk a big bubble about wanting to free Tibet, wanting to save the rainforest, wanting to help poor African children who don't have a floor to vacuum.

They're just too good to help out their own family.  So many middle-class white girls mostly seem to harbor the attitude of, "Cooking?  Ew, gross.  Clean the bathroom?  Ew, gross.  Taking out the trash?  Ew, gross."  They think they are too good to help their family around the household, let alone clean up after themselves.

You are telling me that you do not think it is a priority to clean up after yourself and take care of yourself?  Erm, why the hell not?  You seriously think you are too good to pick up after yourself.  Well, then who the hell is supposed to do that for you?  I got your answer right here -- no one.  It is no one's job but your own to clean up after your own damn mess. 

If you are very young and live with your parents, then same question.  And the correct answer is similar.  Guess what -- if you live in the household, then you have to contribute to it.  It is not your parents' job to clean up your mess.  You are a human being, of this household, of this society, and you have to help maintain it.

In a chemistry lab in school last year, we were doing an extraction assignment and we had to handle raw spinach.  We had to mash up the spinach using a pestle and mortar, and then mix it with water.  The vast majority of the girls in the class were completely disgusted at the prospect of having to mash up some clean green leaves and then touch it with their fingers.

Erm, are you freakin kidding me??  It's just leaves, for god's sake.  It's not like the professor was asking you to take a dirty diaper and smear it all over your hands.  I am deducing that their disgust at having to touch spinach leaves springs from the same source as their disgust at having to do household chores.

As a feminist, I find that I often make it a point to expressly mention that I do in fact do a lot of chores and help out around the house. 

Being a feminist means I want more authority and autonomy in my life than women were allowed in generations gone by.  That means I have to earn the right__
Yes, you have to show that you are truly and well worthy of possessing said right.

I got news for you, hon.  You already have that power.  Doing work, maintaining and up-keeping the household has _already_ vested you with that authority.  You DO have a voice, you DO have equal say.

Bering a feminist means you want to make your own way in this world.  If you choose to stand your ground, claim your post, and be master of your land, then you have to maintain that very land.

I see too may self-proclaimed "feminists" standing up fr or themselves by refusing to chip in the work and participate.

Erm, you know what this is called?  That's called being a spoiled brat.

News flash:  refusing to do contribute to the household is not being a strong intelligent woman who is equal to a man.  It is simply being an entitled spoiled princess.

So stand up for yourself by making your voice heard as an equal in the household.  Don't think hat you are standing up for yourself by refusing to work, refusing to pull your own weight.  That sort of attitude is not going to earn you respect from anybody.  As well, it shouldn't.

If you want to be master of your own domain and be in charge of your own fate, which is precisely what feminism means, this means you also accept everything that comes with it.  You must sustain all the territory that comes with the added authority and power.  Are you starting to understand the reasoning underlying the fact that I am a feminist, and this means I have absolutely zero excuse for not doing housework?

If you choose to relinquish the work, labor, and responsibility of maintaining your life to someone else -- then guess what.  You have also surrendered power in your life to someone else.  If you are not able to maintain your living surroundings, then you are most likely not able to handle having any authority in your life, either.  If that is your preference, then great; have at it.

But I stand here and I have chosen to have the utmost authority in my own life.  That means that in tandem, I have expressly chosen to have to work hard to earn everything. 

If you don't help the house get clean, you don't magically get a clean, comfortable living space.  If you don't learn how to cook food, you don't magically get healthy, nutritious food to appear on the table.

Being a feminist means you want equal weight and consideration of your input when talking in a setting of -- well, in any setting, really.  When in a discussion in the scholarly setting.  When in the professional setting.  When in the world of scientific academia.

You know what that means?  That means you must also take on equal work and responsibility.  If you expect work colleagues as well as other students to give you respect and to value you for your wisdom, intelligence, insight, and solutions, then you must demonstrate that your wisdom, et al. comes from experience.  You must demonstrate that you have done the actual work and experienced results and you know first-hand what works well.  You must show your peers that you have the knowledge and that you have worked hard to earn it.  You must show that you will continue to work hard.

That goes the same for the household setting.  Look, I strongly believe that charity begins at home.  I am a feminist, and because of this, I am even more motivated to pitch in and perform work around the house.  Because I want equal authority, I must be an equal contributor.  It is only logical.  Work is work, and I couldn't live in a dirty house.

If you want an equal vote, then you have to equally contribute.  If you want equal say, then you have to do equal work.

Here is another thing I don't understand.  People say it takes sooooo much energy to clean and it is sooooooooo difficult.  Erm, no it really is not that difficult.  You just clean.  That's it.  It requires some effort and it is hard work, but no, it is not difficult to understand.  You clean and scrub and sweep.  When the place starts to look better, you know you are going in the right direction.

As for the energy requirement, let me reveal something to you.  I have found a peculiar something in my personal perception of cleaning.  Let us look at this from a more scientific perspective.  Let us bring up the topic of entropy.  The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe is steadily moving towards chaos, randomness.  It is the lowest, most evenly distributed amount of energy.

But thing is with me, it takes more energy on my part to force myself to ignore a mess.  it takes me less energy to simply clean

I would rather diffuse the extra bubbling energy that is imbibed within me to force myself to ignore a mess.  With me, cleaning and tidying up is "going with the flow" as far as doing what comes naturally.

Resorting To This Is Evidence Of Dire Straits

If women have to resort to this, this is almost always evidence that they do not **truly** have any power in that society whatsoever.  Because if the female did have respect and authority and power, then she would not have to resort to demeaning herself like this.

Think about it.  If the menfolk in said society honestly saw women as whole human beings unto themselves, then they would pay attention when a woman speaks.  They would pay attention because she is a sovereign citizen of that society.  She is a hardworking contributing member of the community.  As such, she deserves to be heard as much as any male member of said society does.  Her vote would count. 

If the female feels she has no recourse other than to just screw, this is evidence that she is a wimp.  That is my honest opinion.  Trailblazing, like run for political office.  She does not have the guts to get people to pay attention to her without begging for sexual attention and approval from males.  Maybe she does not have anything worthwhile to say.  So she merely resorts to negative female stereotypes of being a sesss object.

The other possibility is that she is not that bright.  She is not creative or skillful enough to contribute something worthwhile, such as Pennies For Progress.  So again she falls back on not being good for anything else.

A Perpetual Motion Of Rebellion

In the vast majority of my encounters, in my experience, most atheists and other rebels, "go against the grain," "dance to the beat of their own drum" types, "individual" types

Oftentimes they are simply stuck in a state of perpetual rebellion.  This is rebellion against their parents, against the small town that they grew up in, against the church they grew up attending which may have been the site of an embarrassing experience, against the rest of their relatives.

They still have not gotten over the seething anger, hurt, feelings of betrayal, and juvenile rebellion against some perceived authority.

they have not arrived at their current position of anti-religion through a path of logic and reasoning.  they have arrived here through simple reactionary rebellion.  it is nothing more than teenage rebellion.  they may eventually grow out of it.  this is because they did not come here as grown-ups in the first place.  they did not apply critical thinking.  it is merely a violent reaction to the oppression that they have felt throughout their childhood and adolescent formative years.

they still have not worked through the emotional reaction they still harbor.  they still have not gotten over it.

Hey, All You Self-Proclaimed Rebels, Try This On For Size

I am not overly fond of the designator "rebel," for it implies that a person is a silly powerless, stupid little child.

A "rebel" is a person that does have authority in their own life.  A "rebel" feels there is some sort of external imposing authority that controls the person's life.  The person, rather than taking rightful control of their own life and doing what is healthy and best and right for themselves, they lash out blindly and stupidly.  They are reactionary and emotional, instead of utilizing careful thought and planning to improve their lives.  With no thought to organizing, planning.

Let us first postulate the existence of a fictional universe.

This is a universe in which people are rigidly stuffed into predetermined gender roles from which they never venture or stray.  This would be a sort of stereotypical society in which women possibly do not have any power outside the home.  A society such as this often has the following framework. 

Now, this is an exaggerated and stereotypical society in which gender roles are rigidly set in stone and no one can waver out of it.  This was how American society was [[[designed]]] back in the 1600s and 1700s.  this is how present-day society is [[[designed]]] in poverty-stricken, less-developed countries.

Just as a matter of record, let us briefly address the wife-and-mother role when in a society that is not the stereotypical blockaded one as above.  I personally am fine with women being wives and mothers in a normal society.  As I have written before, a wife and mother has enormous power and influence in a modern society.  This is because she has some of the most substantial and important responsibilities in said society.

Back to the essay.  A lot of hot-air-for-brains liberal females try to "prove" they want a more egalitarian society in which women are respected as much as men are.  To do this, they decide to become strippers and prn stars.  These are their claims, not mine.        morass of easily-duped females__

These females that are evidently screwed in the head actually claim that this balloon-headed approach achieves the lofty aspirations.  It is an absolute laugh of "challenging people's pre-held assumptions," or "challenging society's views of women," or "challenging women's roles in society."

Break the rules, challenge the status quo... by being sinful and screwing up your emotional and physical health.  Madonna and her sht-fked__  I saw an interview with Carol Leifer, one of the producers of Seinfeld or something.  She thinks of herself as very trailblazing and original, indeed.

I knew we were in trouble when people started saying Marylyn Monroe was a role model.  Why?  Because she went to church dressed like a skank?

Honey, you are not challenging jack schitt.  The elites and all us other respectable members of society already know that all that mess exists.  And now you have simply decided to join and perpetuate it.  You have done nothing good for society.  You have only added to the teeming, squirming alien bacterial growth that is a blight on society.  Like an alien egg cluster.

So what?  We already know that strippers and hookers and whores exist.  We already know that dregs of society exist.  The throwaway people.  And we want nothing to do with them.  Shrug.  I know I feel that way.  What exactly do you think you are challenging when you say you are "contesting people's pre-held assumptions and pre-judgments?"

You are not challenging anything.  You are, in fact, simply reinforcing us elites' already-held views and opinions.

That is not being trailblazing, nor being revolutionary, nor being a renegade.  It is not "challenging" anything at all.  It is in fact following right along the rules and lines and limits that this oppressive society has.  That mode of conduct is being obedient and docile, and is ignorantly, unwittingly playing right into this "society's" sneaky, convoluted hands.

Hell, some of the so-called powerful imperialists possibly might even exploit, encourage, and take advantage of this dreck.  Useless government officials going to strip clubs and/or having sex with prstes.  By doing so, these "government higher-ups" associate with it, have attached themselves to it like leeches, and they have made themselves a part of it.  They have lowered themselves and their standing in society down to the throwaway level.  They are now part of the problem.
--

In honesty, I feel that once someone has done something like this, there is no more hope for them.  Sorry, but that is the harsh truth.  Anyone that does this is tainted and does not have any hope for improvement.  They are contaminated and diseased, and I honestly feel that they should cauterize off their reproductive organs and just make sure they don't perpetuate their genes.

If you really wanted to challenge people's pre-held assumptions, then you would stop this shit.  Clean yourself the hell up, inside out, and realize that that filth will get you nowhere. 

Truly, genuinely improve yourself and become a contributing member of society who builds to society and helps reparir society, rather than tearing down society and screwing it up.  Now, that would be truly shocking to people.

So, to re-word.  If you truly wanted to challenge people's pre-held notions, then you would not have done any of this in the first place.  What you should have done is ___ try for something that would genuinely give you authority and power in society.
if you want real power, then infiltrate the elite power circles that you evidently think are so
get in on that exclusive membership.
get inside there, and then change it to something good.
hint:  being a stripper will not allow you to do this.  all that does is make you a stripper.  striipers are a laught and a joke.

run for city council.  Study economics and political science and law.  learn the way that local government is run.  do research.___  learn the way that national governemtn is run.  __make sure you win.
prepare yourself before then by majoring in something useful in college.  get a respectable-high paying job.  shwo people that you know how to do hard work, but more importyanly than tha, you know how to do smart work.  prove that you can handle a large amount of responsiblity.  get a professional job at a company and get yourself promoted.  don't major in soething easy and useless in college like medeival literature philosophy and then whine and complain that you can't find work.
or scrap the city council part and do all the other things. _____
a formidable force to be reckoned with.
get actual authority and power and use it to your advantage.

you want real power?  run for political office and win.  you want ral power?  be the head of a corporation.

Be a journalist who exposes corruption in the government.  Be an investigator, be a detective,
Be a journalist who uncovers something sinister that preys upon the people.
be a whistle-blower
Erin Brockovich, whose life as a movie was played by Julia Roberts, is a far more interesting renegade and trailblazer than the prostitute played by Julia Roberts back in the stone age.  And Erin Brockovich is far more interesting than you.

---
So you try to stick it to the man... by becoming a drug addict.  Decimating your own mental health and medical health and overall well-being.

Or you try to overturn the establishment... by committing violent crime against innocent people.  News fuh-lash:  you are not challenging anything.  You are simply becoming one of the throwaway scraps of society.  You are not questioning or fighting against anything.  All you are doing is hurting innocent people.  They already know that you exist, and they'll call the cops on your ass.

If you really wantd top prove your mettle thorough violence, then why don’t you directr your violent rendencies towards a group that is truly deserving?  Why not channel your vioelent urges so that you might stop the bad guysin their tracks?  Go up against the mafia if you are so tough.  Fight against gangs if you are such a badass.

Hey, here's a thought.  Since you are all so damn worried and obsessed with being trailblazing and renegade-esque, how about being a real renegade?  Seek to genuinely confront and dispute the "evil authority's" preconceived notions about people that claim to want to break from the mold and be in charge of their own life.

Do something useful with your life.  Study science and math, for God's sakes.

So-called oppressed women were not allowed to enter upstanding, moral, dignified careers.  Women entering the workforce was sadly seen as being unladylike.  That is even though these are respectable, educated, prestigious fields.  General society somehow had the impression that women being educated and employed in respectable, honest, dignified fields was an injury to these women's delicate sensitivities and fragile personas.

Women were forcibly kept out of dignified, respectable____ workforce.  [[[[not allowed to participate in]]]]  It was seen as too [[[[demanding ]]]
But women still needed money so they could live.  So what did they do?  Their only other option__  They entered the undignified, non-respectable modes of getting money.
- as we well know, the nasty elements don't give a sht about offending upper socioeconomic classes' delicate sensibilities.  They only care about exploiting human beings.

Just so we are clear, I do not think this is a viable excuse for women to___
That is an incredibly lazy, unoriginal, unimaginative, uncreative solution.  It is the easiest, laziest way out....  It is nothing but the cheap, easy, go-to stock resort of women that are lazy, whorish, sluttish, and in pursuit of a quick buck with absolutely no requirement of bothering themselves to do any genuine hard work.
**((use excerpts from bk review))) They could have pickpocketed, they could have done underground business deals -- NOOTtt involving human trafficking, might I clarify.

Revenge against "society."  Erm, which society, exactly?  Proper society?

Or the dregs of society?  Because, guess what.  You are not rebelling against the waste of society at all.  Not in the least.  You are, in fact, eating right out of their hands.  [[[so that they can pat you on the head and call you a good little rebel.

What I do have a problem with, is the author's handling of this -the character becomes a prostitute. According to the author, the character does this in a fit of revenge. The reasoning behind this completely eludes me. If a person were raped, why in the world would she want to become a prostitute? Revenge against what? To me, it seems the character is only further serving herself up as a victim. The subject of money is brought up, which is understandable. Why couldn't she have gone into the illegal drug trade? Or perhaps smuggling ivory from elephant tusks? Or perhaps being a bookie for underground gambling circles? (Yes, these industries did exist in the 1700s/1800s.) Don't even think about trying to tell me that prostitution is somehow better. The sick fact is, humans do not respect either prostitutes or drug dealers, but at least we fear drug dealers.

--
-- that excuse might have held up under close scrutiny in olden times, but not today.  (Actually to be completely honest, that excuse is not acceptable/viable for such olden times, either.)  This was probably the prevalent attitude among people in eras gone by.  That is not rel much of an excuse, because women still could have____

--this disgusting, impractical, and disrespectful exists today only in abject poverty-stricken countries.
this is the sort of nastiness that transpires in a society that does not encourage nor allow wmn to study useful subjects.  Or prpars for useful careers.,,.
- so either get on board with the future  world and join the world economy that is ever more demanding.
,, or admt that anerica is nottt the land of the free and that people do not have true freedom of speech ir thought

--instead of stupid useless rebellion, self-destructive, unhealthy, immoral.  See the thing is, that is not true originality.  That is following obediently blindly right along their strident oppressive rules and regulations.  And you don't even realize it.
- you are not truly challenging any pre-conceived notions.
-that is still abiding along their rules,, that's still unknowingly, you are still obeying slaving along every single one of their rules.  That's still unwittingly unintentionally playing into their hands.

Liberal weird modes of argument

Liberals accuse conservatives of falling down the easy path of slippery slope consequences.

but they always engage in logical fallacies of kooky slippery slope consequences.  an example is any time a woman speaks out against women being treated as s-x objects.  then all of a sudden the hurled crazy loony illogical indictments are thrown about.  Such as, "oh you think wimmin should all wear burkas, you think wimmin should all go live in the taliban in remote villages in tribal uncivilized Afghanistan."

precarious predictable succumbing-to gravity-slopes
avalanche.  landslide

ah, excuse me?  when the hell did we ever say that women should all be shrouded in cumbersome, burdensome burkas?

ok see, this is why you can't talk to extremist liberals.  they are fearmongers and shrill shriekers.  they distort and exaggerate the opposing side's arguments to inflated ridiculous proportions.  And then they attack those inflated versions as if those were the conservatives' original arguments.

Liberals love to accuse conservatives of being violent extremists, fearmongers, and hatemongers.  But they are just as irrational and idiotic as any conservative they criticize.

Management Majors

Boring, mediocre, mind-numbingly average, no marketable skills, no realistic job prospects, no hope of ever moving on up.

for management FAll 2003 roomates;
They eagerly await their acceptance into a job as a "manager" apparently.

...Buttt how in the world are you going to be promoted into the position of "management," with managerial duties and resp0onsiblities, if you were not already working in that given job environment?

They expect swift [[promotion]]] hiring straight into a job in management directly out of college.  Evidently they think that when they are walking in the ceremony, they will be handed their college diploma on stage, then walk off stage, and have a gushing hiring manager fawning all over them at the end of the stage waiting breathlessly to give them a job.

But.... you don't even know the job duties. 
If you are hired straight out of college into a job position in "management," you would not even know what the job is!  Since you do not have any work experience in that particular office setting, you would not even know what the job entails.  How in the world are you going to "manage" a group of people if you don't even know the kind of work they do?

You have to first have enough work experience in one of the [[[foot-level jobs]]].  you have to be very familiar with all the other little job titles and the full scope of their duties.  You have to be able to do all of their work,,, know the full range of their job responsibilities.  You cannot expect to be a "manager" without knowing what you are managing.  What all of this means is that you would have to already start working in one of the entry-level jobs of the office.  Then when you have acquired ample enough work experience, then you would be eligible to be considered for the supervisor job.

Sooo... you are not learning any actual job skills.  You are learning "management," which means you are learning that you have to get a job.  

Erm... why not just go out and get a job then?  You do realize that you are not going to get a management job the minute you graduate?  You're going to have to start, horror of horrors, in an entry-level job, and then work your way up to manager.

Frankly, I would have a lot more respect for these people if they simply bucked up, got realistic, sucked in their pride, and got jobs in manual labor, rather than complain that they can't get a $60,000 salary job straight out of college.  If they went out and got jobs in manual labor, that way they would have actual work experience.  Skilled labor, whatever.

And of course it goes without saying that I would have enormous respect for them if they went for something in a much higher calling, something college-required that would actually get them a job after graduating.  Any of the SMET jobs are a given.  Or education is always a mainstay.  But not this no man's land, limbo, boring, lifeless, vast wasteland in which they exist now.

I just read over this and I feel like it sounds too much like I dislike white people.  Look, I don't dislike white people, I really don't.  I try not to sink into a stereotyping mindset, either.  It’s just that they are not exactly helping white stereotypes of blandness.

Same As Twice Before, But More Devious

This is the same thing that has been done before.  This shocking realization occurred to me, slowly but surely.  It is now simply packaged and wrapped up in a different superficial yarn.

Wow, you're just trying them all on for size, aren'tcha?

It seems there have been three different approaches to this 3h:+.  And whoever was selling it will say whatever they need to say, to keep females submissive and stupid.  And disgustingly, derogatory, demeaning, treated like sex objects, objectification, treated like pieces of meat.  It seems that misogynists will do absolutely whatever they have to do to promote their sick agendas.  They will say whatever they have to say, they will talk out their necks, they will talk out their azzez.  They will doublespeak, they will contradict themselves, they will doublethink.  They will use some skewed, twisted pretzel logic.

First it was, "you are a worthless piece of 3h +, you have to do this, you have no choice.  You are a female, you have to serve males in whatever way they see fit to their whimsy.  You are slaves, you are weaker, less intelligent, less capable.  b----, you are a slave, you are a piece of property, that's all you are good for, so lick their toes.  You better consider yourself damn lucky that a man, any man, thought you worthy of being f---able."

This was the norm throughout pretty much all of human history.

Second, then the misogynists were thinking, "well, that's not really selling anymore.  So let's try to appeal to females' sense of femininity and trying to please their man (known in the popular lexicon as females' "sense of reason" and "logic")."  their sense of constantly trying to please people, constantly trying to get people to like them.  Constantly hoping, "ohgosh, I hope they like me, ohno did I offend them, do they still like me, do they still think I'm a sweet adequate friend?"

Misogynists try to convince females that it's the right thing to do to act this way, try to reason with them.  Break them down gently, kill them softly, gradually break down their sense of self and dignity and pride.  Don't you _agree_ that males are stronger, more intelligent beings, more capable, more worthy of respect?'  "Males should not be treated like pieces of meat because of course they are full complete human beings with feelings and hopes and dreams, but you are not.  Shouldn't you put aside your own hopes and dreams and instead just try to please them and give them what they need?  Squash and bury and pulverize into dust any possible hopes or dreams of your own because those are not important.  You should not be so selfish, you should be completely supportive and selfless and sacrifice your own well-being so that they may attain happiness.  Well, don't you *want* to be submissive and greet him warmly and soothingly at the door being naked with a martini, clear away all clutter, wrapped all in saran wrap, speak in a soft soothing voice?  Don't you want to please your man?"

This was the prevalent wave of misogyny that was especially documented circa the 1700s and 1800s, and legendarily the 1950s.

Third, now very recent, some misogynists realized, "Oh 3hi+ 3hi+ that's not working anymore, oh no what do we do?  How do we make this for mass appeal?  What is it that they say they want?  They want liberation, empowerment, independence, self-confidence.  We know!  Tell them this 3hi+ is liberating, empowering, will make them independent, and will give them confidence.  You have to be careful just to use the *terms,* the vocabulary words.  For god sakes, don't use the actual meanings!  You know -- the definitions you find when you take the time to look up the words in the dictionary.  Don't actually promote liberation and empowerment and thinking for themselves.  Because then they might start to actually think for themselves and realize that the sellers are just blowing a lot of hot air out their asses.  No no, a lot of females are mostly stupid.  Just use the vocabulary words, and they will see that and immediately think that what we are selling is real."


This is a sick, grotesque, morbid, ludicrous travesty (parody) of what feminism is supposed to be.

Disillusionment Is Never a Pleasant Experience, Part 2

I am slowly becoming disillusioned as to the true nature of so-called liberals.  I am currently reviewing my articles from previous years.  During that time, I had been deathly afraid that someone in the typical mainstream media outlets would read my essays and just start screaming, would start hurling screeching hysterical accusations that that is RACIST.  Or regarding other articles, they might accuse me that I must be jealous of strong capable women in charge if her own life, and that I must be just ashamed of my body and that is the only reason that I could possibly think women need to conduct themselves with some self-respect.  I was afraid they would call me out for not being open-minded, for not keeping up with the times, for not being modern and liberated enough.  Looking back now, my peculiarities don't seem _as_ liberal as other people's morass that permeates the airwaves.  Believe it or not, that was the liberal version of myself.

Note the following.

*I truly believed that extreme conservatives were just as bad as extreme liberals.  I noticed several parallels in their thought cognitive processes.  I still do think this now.  But had I not gone through that liberal stint, I would not have noticed it.  I do suppose I have liberalism to thank for that.  Ehh.

Many times in the media, liberals/atheists and Christians butt heads on a number of topics.  The Christians' responses are predictable, as you might have predicted.  But somewhat surprisingly, now the atheists' responses are quickly growing very formulaic as well.

I have a unique vantage point, coming from a background that is not specifically Christian, but is definitely religious and strict.  My perspectives on things have become more complex, and are more comprehensive.  This was actually quite fun and convenient; I could use this to my advantage.  Anytime a religious nutjob tried my patience, I could side with the atheists.  Any time a "godless hairy ape" (hehe, that's from "Sabrina the Teenage Witch") grated my nerves, I could side with the Christians.

However, more recently several different current news events progressed very quickly in series.  This spurred me [[like an emergency response]]]]]]] to rethink my outlook.  It is odd that they are transforming before my very eyes.  Either they were always like that and now it is midnight, therefore their magical spellcast disguise of a stately coach is wearing off to reveal the true rotting pumpkin.  -Or- they are slowly but surely degenerating into hypocrisy and gullibility, which indicates they do not realize what a joke they are.

Here are summarized examples.

*I was really only protesting the extreme disgusting ends of the spectrum, not liberalism as a collective whole.  I was not truly able to verbalize coherently, using methodical philosophical arguments, as to why this is bad.  And I did not yet recognize it as being from the liberal train of thought; I simply thought those were simply misogynism in another form.

Let me be even more completely honest than I have been before.  It was not just a matter of me trying to be nice and politically correct.  I also succumbed to peer pressure.  I was cringing and flinching the whole entire time I was writing.  Every single time I wrote something critical of liberal dreck, I was afraid that some insane liberal would come at me, screaming in hysteria and irrationalism, foaming at the mouth, and would accuse me of wanting women to be stuck back in the 1950s.

*I was always trumpeted equality of the different ethnicities, the races.  This one was not my fault; I truly did not have all of the information.  The mass media truly was covering up a lot of pertinent information about race, intelligence, education, and success.

*I was vehemently protesting Christianity and Islam.  If not being atheist myself, then I certainly was sympathetic towards them.  Because I still dutifully believed that they were open-minded, progressive, open to all ideas, that they believed in freedom from dictatorial dogmatic thought control.  I believed when they said they were completely non-judgmental towards Christians.  Totally unlike the way that Christians/religious types treat them.  I believed when they said they would never ever force their beliefs or day-to-day life conduct onto Christians, the way that Christians do to atheists.

Re atheists:  at first I believed them when they said they were much more respectful towards women, that they regarded women as whole healthy human beings on an equal plane of existence to that of men.  But it turns out they are huge disgusting perverts.  What's worse, it is supposedly the “scientists” that are foisting this idea onto the general public.  You know, supposedly the free thinkers and forward thinkers and the people who base their opinions on facts and data rather than pre-conceived notions?  Leading into...

I thought that they believed in education because they claimed to believe in education.  But I decided to really observe.  What was their basis for this claim?  Evolution.  That's it.  Nothing else.  They never really mention other branches of science.  They do not seem aware that other branches of science exist.  Nope, solely Evolution is their cause du jour.

*I felt obligated to feel sympathy for single unwed mothers that had a couple kids out of wedlock.

I had tutored many very-low-class blacks and a few very-low-class whites at a tutoring center that was free to them. The females were very very young, yet still had at least one illegitimate kid born before her eighteenth birthday, and were living on government support.  Because of liberalism, I felt obligated to feel proud of her that she is now turning her life around, is going to school.  Ohhh pooh pooh cooing gently soothingly, poor you.

If she started complaining about her situation (which was self-inflicted in all honesty), I felt obligated to comfort her and sympathize.  "How was she expected to study for these tough, tough remedial math courses if she had to take care of a baby that she had at sixteen?"  Out of a civic duty not to offend her.  I even went so far as to never ask any of those females if their husbands could pitch in and help.  Hey, it's the new millennium, right?  I can't just assume that anyone with a baby is automatically married.  I felt obligated to never dare mention the word "husband."  -BUT- at the *same* time I felt obligated to act indignant for them, "oh how could the unwed father just not be in his child's life or give you money?"

*I was massively, majorly pro- banning guns.  More info later.

---
But as I said, now a series of perplexing news reports progressed in rapid sequence.  It is an interesting viewpoint that I have gradually learned to form.  I suppose one could consider me an apostate from the mass-media brainwashing cult that is liberalism.

More White People Complaining About AffAct

Oh, Christ.  Another boring white boy complaining that affirmative action prevented him from getting that job he really, really wanted.

You can call it what you want.  The fact of the matter is, you are bitter and resentful simply because you did not get what you want.  No different from when black people complain that racism is bad because it causes them to not get what they want.  Them damn mexi-cahns and dem damn wimmin.  Ruining ar good ole boys.

You're mad because you did not get that job that you think you deserved?  You think you had a right to that job?  You think that you somehow psychically staked your claim on it?  Too bad.  Move on.  Evolve.  Adapt.

I have never once heard a medical doctor complain that their rightful job was denied them____]

(((Birthright, their rightful job that was betrothed to them, which they would ascend to upon reaching legal status.  It was dangled in front of them, with promises of riches and luxury beyond their wildest dreams, only to be snatched away, ripped from their grasp, torn from their reach, ripped out of their hearts.  Betrayal and despair, that's all it ever was, and now all that is left is a pile of broken dreams.  To hear them talk, this is what they sound like.

I have never heard an engineer complain that a minority took his job.  I have, however, met many white engineers who work alongside engineers who are minorities.

This is because there are enough of those math, science and technology jobs to go around.  Or more accurately, there are more job positions available than there are people to fill those spots.

If a brown person comes in, no white person is displaced.  It is because these are jobs that require genuine qualifications.  The employment position has specific descriptors and credentials, signified with certifications, certifying exams.  The jobs require quantifiable skills that personnel managers are looking for in potential candidates.

In the liberal arts type jobs, advertising, public relations, whatever, there are waaayy more applicants than there are jobs available.  Waaayyy too many kids in college do not bother pursuing careers in math, science, engineering, or technology.

It seems that many companies have quota policies in place.  So they have to hire a certain minimum number of minorities and women to fill their quota-percent requirements.  There are waaay more job candidates than there are jobs; there are not enough jobs to go around.  But they have to be politically correct so they have to implement aff-act.

Tell you what.  I am going to wholeheartedly accept their offer of admission which I rightfully have earned. I am going to embrace it because I have worked to get into this program.

But if you so chose, you can go ahead and pretend to yourself that I only got accepted into rigorous courses of study due to Affirmative Action, and that it had nothing to do with my natural affinities for logic and reasoning skills.

You may go on and convince yourself of this if it makes you feel better.  If you so desire to assuage your own feelings of inadequacy with this tactic, then great.  If it helps calm your dreading suspicion that you are not as qualified and talented as I, then so be it.  Go ahead and lie to yourself if it makes you feel better.

You wanna know why Bill Gates moved the bulk of his technical operations to India?  It's because the States do not produce nearly enough graduates in computer science, computer engineering, any of those.

"Women are not getting married as much nowadays as they did in the 1950s."

"Women are not getting married as much nowadays as they did in the 1950s."  Oh, how I wish this statement were a harbinger of good news.  I wish we could infer that since women are not getting married, it must mean that women are showing good judgment in all areas of their lives and are conducting themselves wisely.  Would that it were true.

Unfortunately, the sad fact is this statement can ONLY be taken at surface value.  The fact that women are not getting married does not mean that their lives are magically better than if they had gotten married.

Because the only thing that they are *not* doing is getting married.  However, they are not refraining from doing any of the other negative things associated with bad relationships and bad men.  This does not mean that women are escaping and rescuing themselves from abusive relationships from guys that treat them like 3hi+.  They still are stuck, only now it is with a boyfriend rather than a husband.  Either life choice sucks.

It does not mean that women are conducting their lives any better, getting a better education, having better job prospects, obtaining better jobs.  It does not mean that women are showing discretion and wisdom in their personal lives.  It does not mean they are choosing their sex partners wisely.  They are most likely moved in with some guy, or the guy has moved into her apartment because he can't afford rent.  Some guy who sees her as not much more than a convenient sex partner; chances are he does not see her as a whole human being.  It is possible that they are pregnant or already have a child together.  They do not have an actual commitment of any kind.

This “women aren’t getting married” does not mean that women are refraining from having babies before they are emotionally and financially ready to have babies.  They still are having babies when they are way too young and way too poor, just not within marriage.

It’s fine not to get married.  I am not saying that all women should get married whether they want to or not and that's all there is to it and I don't want to hear anything else.  That is not what I am saying.  (I have to emphasize this because I can predict that there will be liberals that put words in my mouth and accuse me of saying random crap that I am not saying.)  Hell, I'm not married and I know women who have not gotten married and are better for it.

But it is laughable that news outlets are reporting the general trend as good news-- when the whole facts are that a lot of women are still screwing up their lives in other ways without needing marriage to do so.

Expression Of Sexuality

Let's talk about this so-called expression of sexuality.

They’re too embarrassed to broach the issue in conversation with their boyfriends or one-night stand.  They say it is embarrassing to talk about.
Ah, excuse me?  If you are too embarrassed just to merely talk about it, then why the hell are you doing it?

I truly do not understand how these women are comfortable enough to DO any of these things if they are not even comfortable enough to talk about it.  Which comes first?  Talking about it openly and honestly, or just doing it?
I cannot comprehend this weird disconnect.

From what I have seen, most women are too embarrassed to talk about it.  _____ the only time they are comfortable talking about it is if they have been beaten abused bloody broken abused all their lives.  And only after all that trash,_____

(((((((((Another weirdness)))))))))))
A weird thing that I'm seeing very recently.
From what I have observed, for some odd mysterious reason a lot of females wear their sexuality on their sleeves.  Here's what that means.

If they kiss a guy, the next day they are wearing a revealing low-cut top.
____They take one of those eye-roll-inducing stripping classes.___
They immediately reveal to the whole entire world that they are sexually active.  The more sxxx they are having in private behind closed doors, the sluttier and whorier they act out in public.

It's like they are scooping up whatever sexual activity they have done recently, like they analogically pick it up with their hand using a napkin or a scooper or something.  And they immediately reflect it to the outside world.  They slap it on a window like a dirty diaper with the business side pointing outward.  So now the whole entire world can ogle and gawk and stare, and of course pass judgment.  I will readily admit to being one of the people that judges them.  Well, what did these girls expect?  Do they honestly think they could just reveal personal, private things, and the general public would <not> have an opinion?

It's like they do not have any sense of privacy or personal space at all.  They do not possess the knowledge of how to keep personal private things as personal and private.  They do not know how to maintain dignity out in public.

And then they have the comically obtuse gall to screech and whine that they have no privacy and people are violating their privacy.  “Ohmigosh no one respects my privacy!  Ohmigosh no one respects me!”  Right.  How dare they not respect the girl that flashes her private parts for a stranger wielding a video camera.

Under-Qualified White Folk And AffAct

So, again, this just points to more resentment by under-qualified white folk that have no substantial concrete education.

They majored in crap fields when they enrolled in college, and now they realize that those majors that they half-heartedly chose will not get them jobs.  Nothing that is remotely relevant to the job market, nothing that will actually get them a job that has security and stability.

But I’ll let you in on a little secret:  I have never met an unemployed white engineer.  I have met plenty of white people who are engineers.  But not a single one of them was unemployed.  Not one.  They were employed and useful and happy.

So if any white people harbor resentment for affirmative action policies, this is just evidence that they are not really qualified to do anything.  If white people were qualified to do jobs that actually do something, then they would have no problem getting jobs.  Simply nothing more than [[[evidence, clues]]] that they do not have any marketable job skills.

I have never heard a white medical doctor complaining that they were denied entry into medical school due to affirmative action going to some minority kid.  You know why?  Because acceptance into medical school requires actual credentials.  It requires intelligence, it requires a competitive major in college, it requires tons of volunteering and extracurricular activities.  It requires a good score on the Medical College Admissions Test.  In short, it requires a demonstrated propensity for medical school.

I swear, every single f'n time that I see a middle class white person complain screeching screaming complaining that “affirmative action is wrong!”  It is usually because they are a middling middle-of-the-road mediocre performance college kid that expects mommy and daddy to come bail them out of overnight jail because they were caught drinking under age.

They fully expect to go to college, and fully expect their parents to foot the entire bill, and they usually have no earthly clue what they want to major in.  Hell, sometimes they go and attend college for four years and are still undecided on their major.

Dragging Oneself Through The Mud Is Not A Mandatory Precursor

I suppose this leads into another___

Every bit as weird [[perplexing, nonplussing]]] is the trend that people seem unable to talk about a problem unless they have dragged themselves through the mud, and bruised and abused themselves with it.  They have to be a former user, abuser, and loser to be allowed to talk about a problem.

Equally as weird is the permeating opinion from a lot of people, and I do mean a lot of people, that a person is absolutely not allowed to have an opinion on a situation unless they have actually been through it themselves.  Or that a person is not allowed to pass judgment on a situation unless they have gone through it.

Case in point:  the getting pregnant as a teenager or otherwise out of wedlock.
I remember a lot of apparently stupid self-inflicting former teenage pregnancy queens that are of the opinion:  "ohh yeah well you don't know what it's like having a guy seduce you and tell you he'll take care of you if you get pregnant."  "You’ve never been in that situation where a guy is sooo hott and sexy and popular and is always following you around and bugging you for sex."

(Crickets chirping.)  Well, thank god for that.  What the hell good would actually going through that situation have done me?  You <were> in that situation and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

--I’m seeing in a bunch of articles on teen self-esteem and stufff....

As if somehow there is some magical new insight into the situation that might occur if someone is dumb enough to let themselves get caught in it.  As if smarter individuals didn’t already have all the facts.  As if they were not already able to formulate an intelligent, thoughtful decision.  As if anyone really needs to learn the hard way.

They act as if there is some information they alone are privileged to, which heretofore has been unbeknownst to the human race.  Mmmm, nope.  The guy is a primitive jackass jerkwad that only sees girls as sex objects, and he lied to her just so he could get a little tail, and the girl is a dumbdumb that was so desperate for a boyfriend that she did whatever the guy asked.  Am I missing anything?  Do I have everything pretty much covered?

Once in a rare while, like sometimes on the Maury Povich show, I see a guy that is not a total jackhole.  When he and the girl get pregnant, he decides to "be a man" and help raise their child.  Good for them.

Qualifiers, or Credentials

Let us now turn our attention to the subject of qualifiers.  [[discussion]]

(talk about that ER nurse who felt obligated to list credentials and experience.  She felt it was required to preface her opinion of why drugs are bad, with her credentials as a medical health professional.  "The junkies will do whavver necessary to get that drug in that vein."

Unfortunately, I do understand completely why she felt the need to state her first-hand field experience.  It is because people are dumbasses.  People have a [[[diseasicslly]]] refusal to listen to common sense.
They seem pathologically unable to read over statistics, news, and facts.

Like for e.g., I state that the stupid rebellion that so many females put themselves through is self-destructive and useless.  Those dumbarses always spit back, "ohoh what makes you such an expert, are you a psychologist, are you trained in fields of human behavior and history?!"

Um no, but you do realize that this is all common sense...?  It is all psychology and human behavior.  Noone needs a degree in psychology to figure this out. Any non-expert layperson who has a brain and knows how to use it can easily extrapolate the realistic possible consequences.

So here is my qualifier:  I watch the news.[[[[_]]]]]]]

Here's another thing.  Why do so many people think psychology is the sort of subject that requires extensive, specified credentials anyway?  Erm, it's general psychology, folks.  I.e., it is the sort of subject matter for which a person can garner expertise just by observing people.

Remember my whole spiel from a few years ago wherein I questioned the usefulness of a four-year college degree of psychology major?  This is kinda the reason for that.

You know how you see disclaimers everywhere?  On daytime talk shows, on radio shrink shows, we see little warnings saying stuff like, "this is for entertainment purposes only, these people are not trained psychologists or experts.  These people are not trained psychiatrists or counselors, etc." 
These little warnings absolving them of any responsibility because some idiot viewing audience member might file a lawsuit.

Well, this is kind of the opposite angle.  There should be little signs that say the following.  "No, I do not have a degree in Psychology.  But for God's sake, this is common sense.  This is a matter of exercising good judgment and self-respect.  This is about taking the logical and reasonable course of action.  So what if we don't have degrees in psychology?  You don't need a degree in psychology to know that alcoholism is bad, or that molesting children is bad.  Sane, rational people already know this."

A similar strange phenomenon is where people think they should be obligated to add some sort of eyewitness testimony towards a horrific crime, if not being an "expert" per se.  Like, Kay Hanley of Letters to Cleo said once that she saw a lot of people being victim to domestic violence growing up.  That is why she does so much charity and volunteer work nowadays and donates a lot of money for the cause.  (That was one of my favorite bands back in the day; I haven't heard much new stuff coming from them.)

I think it is wonderful that she is actively doing something about this sick crime.  But she doesn’t need to have any documented experience regarding the crime to be a capable, effective activist against it.  Domestic violence is already well-established as being criminal and sick.  Noone has to witness it themselves firsthand to effect positive social change against it.

---
Or people's foolish aggravating insistence to go through it themselves, experience it themselves to see if it is bad or not.  They are incapable of learning from others' mistakes.  They are bullheaded and they must make the mistake themselves.

Daddy Issues And Why This Is No Excuse

But hang on a second.  Wait a minute.  “Daddy issues?”  This does not really make any sense, not when I take the time to really think about it.  Like, they try to say that when girls go off to college a lot of them turn into huge whires.

But there are different kinds of love.  All the types of love that a person feels towards their family and friends-- are not identical.  Each one is approached from different perspectives, perception, and intentions.

There was brief mention about this in Psych 101.  It is a psychological phenomenon and concept called "Electra."  You know how men have "Oedipus" complex?  Women have "Electra" complex.

At first when I heard about this, way back in Psych class, I was like, "Aha!  Finally they are acknowledging that girls do not in fact have it easy.  It is not that coasting, hovering through sheltered life with not a care in the world.  You know how in some discussion circles, people think girls are pampered and protected; girls have it too easy because their rich daddy spoils them rotten while simultaneously treating the son like crap; girls do not know true hardship; everyone always protects them from having to face anything scary, etc.  And supposedly boys have far more interesting psychology because they have been through some stuff, which has helped them grow as human beings, they are far more resilient and strong, etc."

But now we have psychologists providing proof that the aforementioned assumptions are not true.  Girls do in fact have their own issues to deal with.

Surely this must have made girls stronger and smarter...  Hardship taught them to take care of themselves...  Obstacles taught them to be very shrewd...  Surely this must have taught them that you cannot just assume someone else will take care of you...  Rather than waiting to depend on someone else, you have to be self-sufficient.

Surely this must have taught them that not everyone in life is always going to like you...  And also not everything in life is just going to be handed to you on a middle-class silver platter...

So instead of worrying if people like you and want you to be popular (etc.), you can focus your attention on taking care of yourself.  Must provide for themselves, not naively assume that you can always rely on someone else.  After all, if your own daddy and you do not even get along, how reliable could strangers out on the street possibly be?

Surely this provided them with the mental acumen to be realistic and prepare for the future...
--- Right??

The Subject Of Daddy Issues

If you have ever perused a "modern female rag" such as cosmo or glamour or any of the countless polymer others, you will notice that they are apparently all written and edited by, and read by, dumb bitches with cystically shitty judgment and tumorously massive daddy issues.

Aha!!  I knew it!!  I knew they were not whole, healthy, complete human beings with psychology intact and with normal emotional functioning.

Yes, I guess the verdict is in.  Any time you hear a dumb slut say crap like "cooking is demeaning to women but b--wing some guy she just met in a club bathroom is empowering; she's feeling empowered f'ing a different guy every night;” or “she is liberated by handing out bj's like candy," or "she always needs a toy of some sort in order to sleep with any of the hundreds of guys she slept with."

Most likely she is a carved out, hollow, soulless, empty shell.  With severe unsolved loose ends with her paternal figure.  Which still does not make any sense to me, because a lot of people have daddy issues.  But they don't all go and turn into two-bit w---es.

On The Subject of Love vs. Love

Okay, I realize this might be a weird segue, but in a way it works.  This has always bothered me, and now I can express the verbiage for why.

The inklings of when I first realized there are diff kinds of love.  Like, why are there so many romance stories in which a young girl or young person forsakes their own family that they were born into... for the sake of some silly romance?  They say they yearn for love, they say they want love.


But the thing is, they already <have> love.  They already have people who love them and care about them.  Who have concern for their well-being.

I am not understanding why they would give up one love... for another.  What makes the other kind of love so great?

I have noticed that when most people say "love" as in the romantic sense, oftentimes they really do not mean "love" at all.  They mean lust, infatuation, obsession, or possession (like Sarah McLachlan's "possession").

What are the elements of love? 
This is what must exist for romantic love to be genuine and sincere.  This is what elevates it from being merely cheap lust/infatuation/etc. to being actual <love.>  So that in the romantic situation, it is worthy of honestly being called love.  It must transcend merely the physical attraction.  This pretty much reiterates what I have been saying all this time.  There must be emotional connection.  There must be genuine sincere close friendship.

These are the components of love.  They must be present in the familial love.  And they must be present in the romantic/relationship type love.  but from what I am seeing, a lot of times the___

=••=>>  major breakthrough -- theij is my essay wjrrn I that there are different kinds of love.
I do not regard a spouse/boyfriend in the same manner that I regard my parents.  Romantic love is an entirely different species from the parent-child bond.

One thing that needs to be noted.  One very important difference is that in the parent-child relationship, the two participants are not equals to each other.  This is true of the mother-and-child relationship, and this is true of the father-and-child relationship.

Anndd they are not supposed to be.  You better believe the parents are higher in status and rank than you are.  They are the Authority.  They are your parents, they are raising you and supporting you.  They brought you into this world.  You are not equal to them.  [[like Bill Cosby said,]]]

Whereas, consider a romantic/sexual relationship such as marriage, including the above-mentioned mother and father.  The manner in which they regard each other must involve mutual respect and_____

The two people must be equals.  (((import bit cut out from "commun in dating" essay))))
--You do not have the same relationship with every one of your family members.  You do not have the same relationship with your sister as you do with your mother.  You do not have the same relationship with your brother as you do with your father.

Subtle Incarnation Of That Same Phenomenon

Also there is a weird little manifestation of that, more subtle.  To a far less devastating extent.  But I think they spring from the same origins.  I have noticed this for the past few years, at least since as early as I wrote that essay, most likely since even earlier than that.

It appears some so-called "modern" girls out in the media are trying to rebel against the oppressive stereotypical, rigid gender roles.  They seem to think, "okay well, I am questioning a portion of family tradition, that of men domineering over women."  Alright, so far, so good.

But in doing so, they are allowing that "questioning" tendency to leak to other areas of their family and culture.  They have also started questioning their multicultural family identity altogether.  In doing so, they cast off any traditions <at all.>  Including their cultural traditions and cultural values.  They do not consider themselves as part of their culture at all.  They do not identify with their family culture.

Some crazy nutjobs buck any and all tradition, eschew any family ties, and toss any traditions out the window.  That is why lots of times it seems that there are these generic "white" nutjobs that deign to call themselves "feminists."  Huff.  They are an insult to the proud name of feminism.  But what is really their cultural origin?  Don't they care about their background and their family heritage at all?

Therefore they turn themselves into lost little urchins, little ragamuffin grown orphans that have no family identity, no heritage, stranded and wandering out cold and alone on the unforgiving streets.  Stringy dingy clothes with a rat's nest for hair.

But in doing so, she has turned away from her culture.  In the process of doing so, she also loses her family identity and heritage.  So, no family ties; along with that she also loses her cultural heritage.  Then to add insult to injury, she rebels even further against the "good girl" standard.  by this decision to rebel, she decides to become a sl-t.  Effectively there is a double whammy that turns her into a listless, wandering, aimless bag lady.  No offense to actual bag ladies.

In doing so, she has turned her back on her family.  Her family who only loves her and wants what is best for her. 

Here is another thing I do not get.  For some reason, it seems that a lot of non-white multicultural societies, those ethnicities seem to be *more* traditional in terms of stereotyped gender roles than western whites.

This was very surprising to me.  Because first of all, I thought that all multicultural societies were supposedly more equality-based.  That is what we had all been taught growing up, that whites and males were "bad," and that women and minorities were "good" by dint of being women and minorities.  All the affirmative action programs have all been structured around this presumption.  All the mass media try to convince people of this general impression.

But now it seems that feminism and multiculturalism are at odds with each other.  At least the media portrays it this way.  Like in that movie "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."  Now, generally I really liked that movie because of the whole multicultural, ethnic element.  I could definitely relate to Nia Vardalos's main character.  I won't list all the reasons right now because I have to get back to this essay.

Here is another weird example.  On that TV show "Everybody loves Raymond" -- the Debra is apparently a strong capable woman in charge of her own life.  Therefore she hates her father and her parentage.  She is cold and unclose towards them.  They have a distant formal chilly relationship.  Or the whiny little girls on "friends."  Or "will n grace."

But this notion of feminism, education, and progress going against multiculturalist tradition is surprising to me for another reason.  I must reiterate the concept of Bangladeshi and other Asian families.  In all these societies, parents as well as the greater community all encourage girls to be good students and to achieve in life.

Doing very well in school, being an excellent student, planning for one's future -- Bangladeshi families want all of this for girls precisely *because* it is family values.  Being a good kid and having respect for one's parents.  These values all stem from the same origins.  Parents are strict because they want what is best for you.  That has been my experience.  And it has also been the experience of the vast majority of Asian and Bengali kids living in the western world.

Open-Mindedness Does Not Magically Happen

I have a weird realization.  Congealing (concentrating) a bunch of discordant ideologies into one small cramped location does NOT lead to open-mindedness.

We hear all the time from obscure modern political floating heads that a mixture of differing ideologies is somehow good for the growth of society.  Uh, are you sure about that?
This lofty ideal is supposed to be the basis of committee meetings and, indeed, it is supposed to be the foundation of democracy.

Thus far in my general education credit requirements, I have taken a Soc course, a Psy course, a Poli Sci course, a History of World Civ, and an Eng 102 argumentative writing.  As you might imagine, this was concentrating a bunch of wildly differing opinions into a five-hundred cubic foot area of space.
In all these classes, a common thread or theme was woven through all of them.  The majority of the people simply thought that [[[[that they should be heard, I have as typing opinion and I'm a strong capable person in charge of my own life, or something like that.

What was happening is that they did not listen to anyone else.  No one wanted to hear what anyone else had to say.  <They> had the aspiration that they wanted to be heard, but they didn't think anyone else should be heard.  Each person thought he or she alone had the stage, and therefore did not need to afford anyone else much respect or attention.  There was not a whole lot of the hypothetical, mythical, “ohh this person has a different opinion from my own, so I will be open-minded and listen to what they have to say.  After all, it might broaden my horizons and help me grow my world view.”  Nope, not hardly.  Noone was really crazy about the idea that a sociopolitical opposite might offer new insights, etc.

Whereas interaction betwixt students was much more pleasant in the science courses.  I've seen that there is much better cohesion amongst students in the hard science courses.  It seems that that this is precisely because this is a science course, and not one of the social studies courses.  There are definites, there are absolutes.  There _is_ such a thing as a right or wrong answer.  This does not leave room for any indignance, misunderstandings, hurt feelings, perceptions, taking something someone said the wrong way, inferring a different meaning from a speaker than what the speaker intended.

None of that miscommunication mess.  So therefore there is no political disagreement, no taking things personally.  All that leaves is the facts.  All that leaves for students to engage in -- is cooperation.

Rebelling Against Authority- Misconceptions

REBELS always say that conservatives are conformist, predictable, unoriginal, and that they are only trying to get approval from authority.

But rebels derive their identity from the actions of the perceived authority just as surely as any conformist.  Think about it thoroughly.

Whatever actions, etc. that the authority commands people do, rebels do the opposite.  Whatever actions, behavior, etc. the authority forbids people from doing, rebels do just that.

All they ever do is complain about Christianity and what it does to people.  They define their own [[[identity, perception of self___]]] in terms of how they rebel against Christianity.  To what extent or degree do they rebel against Christianity?  In how many different ways do they rebel against Christianity?

Like Tori Amos.  Okay, so honey, do you have any actual identity of your own?  Or do you simply look at___  like bill Maher and his atheist libertarian friends.  They derive their sense of self-worth by the degree to which they reject Christianity.  Their persona is innately tied to the identity that Christianity has already forged for them.
((just realized, this would be excellent bridge from rebels -to- atheists))

If they really do dance to the beat of their own drum, if they really don't care what anyone else thinks of them, then why do they complain that conservatives are so judgmental?

Ha!  Rebels LOVE the strict domineering authority figures.  Without authority figures, there would be no rebels.

For where would rebels derive their identities if not for the existence of authority?

In case anyone hasn't noticed, rebels' identity revolves solely around their reaction___
Their view of themselves orbits their perception of the proximity of authority figures.

it is a direct inverse-proportionate relationship___

Whatever a rebel does, it is always in exact reaction to___  Therein lies my point.  It is a reaction only.  no taking action on your own, no personal responsibility, no telling oneself, that if you want to change the world

It is merely a reaction to what someone else is already doing.  Not taking initiative to solve your own damn problems.  No examining your own life to see if you are really doing what is best for yourself___

Nope.  It is as simple-minded as seeing what "they" are doing, and then doing the opposite.

There is no capacity for critical thinking.  They do not use reasonable logical reasoning; they do not try to extrapolate what the conclusions would be for a particular choice.

They are but exactly still stuck in the mindset of the silly rebellious teenager who has no real power over his/her own life.

Fanatic Raving Lunatic Nutjobs, Not "Feminists"

Oh, no.  I had seen little schmirrecks of this, like rats scurrying into the shadows to avoid detection. Those are the slightly unhinged nutjobs females that call themselves fems -- when it is clear they are not.  I don't even want to type the entire word in the same breath as those screwballs.  They screech and scream that the normal two-parent-headed family unit is oppressive, abusive, horrible, and must be abolished immediately.  {{these were mentioned in john Macionis "sociology" textbook.}}

This crazy chick was absolutely rabid, foaming at the mouth, that “the family unit is destructive,” that “people should sever themselves from all ties with their extended family and relatives, because the nuclear female-mother-and-male-father family unit by definition is violent abusive oppressive, this is because they biologically created the kids together and that is somehow misogynistic, and if they keep strong relationships with their relatives and extended family then they are only sustaining this misogynistic regime, because family means tradition, and tradition is evil and violent, therefore the family must be disbanded," etc.

Those whory nutjobs screech and squawk and rabidly foam at the mouth.  They also get livid, I’m talking furious, if a guy is chivalrous, gentlemanly, if he is courteous and considerate.  Like if a man holds the door open for her or offers up his seat on the bus to her.  Apparently they think this is a staunch insult to their equality.  They think that if a guy is mannerly and chivalrous, this somehow indicates that the female is not equal to him.

But hang on a second.  Wait a minute.  Why exactly is a man holding a door open for a woman a bad thing?  Let me get this straight.  So a guy is treating you with respect -- and your reaction is to get angry??

Men *should* treat women with courtesy and respect.  They should treat a woman like a lady.

Just like how women should treat men like gentlemen.  Just like how ALL members of society should be polite and kind and considerate.  I myself do hold doors open for people all the time.
Why is a guy looked down on if he does the same thing?  Manners and respect are important.  They are what hold society together and keep us functioning.

Okay, see now, that is the kind of slightly unhinged, nutcase, few screws loose, somewhat mentally unbalanced type of assessment that I'm talking about.  They sound exactly the same as so-called "liberal" blacks that voluntarily keep screwing up their lives and then refuse to acknowledge that they did this to themselves.  Racism did not make you drop out of high school.  Racism did not make you get into fistfights in the hallway and be suspended from school.  Racism did not get you pregnant in high school.  Racism did not make you sit on your derriere and collect welfare checks.  Racism did not make you deal drugs, or be a lookout/sentinel for drug dealers.  (Hey, I do my research).

Luckily, this is more of a lunatic fringe incident.  Hardly any normal, mainstream feminists who have healthy psychology agree with this.

Goddamn it.  It’s weird insane nonsense such as this that makes me question feminism sometimes. Once in a rare while, I worry that by very distant association, I might be subconsciously allowing that drivel to seep into my mind, and gradually at such a subtle rate so as not to be detectable, I would eventually take on the personality of one of those sorry degenerative monsters.  Or worryingly, some other feminists already are, however rare in numbers.

The Groupie Tendency

Remember how I have written about girls having a "muse" affliction?  Okay, well, here is a close inbred cousin phenomenon to that prior:  the groupie tendency.

We’ve all heard of and made fun of groupies of rock bands and other musical excursions and entertainment outfits.  But now it turns out that this is not just limited to the realms of cheap entertainment.

It appears that some females display groupie tendencies towards males in other professions as well.  There are quite a few choice fields of expertise that men pursue, that seem to attract females quite happy being relegated to the status of "arm candy" or "hood ornament," as the kids say.

This sometimes sneaks up on you.  This is because I've noticed that when a woman starts talking about all the things she expects in a man, she generally <starts off> on fairly solid ground.  (And she usually insists that she is a strong independent woman in charge of her own life.)  She will say she does not want a guy that cheats on her, she does not want a guy that is dishonest.  She wants a 100% honest human being.  She wants a guy that will stand up for her in front of his friends when they complain, and will come rescue her when those friends make fun of her.

-- Well, that is good.  As long last she is realizing that she needs to respect herself and insist that the guy treat her with respect.  Doing well so far.
--- The female's checklist then continues with the stuff she expects a guy to have.  She starts rattling off more and more increasingly specific things that apparently a guy must have if he dares approach her.  Whether in the bar or club or wherever the hell she goes to expect to find true love and her soul mate.  (Guffaw.)  She wants a guy that is incredibly romantic.  She wants a guy that will sweep her off her feet with this romantic and seductive prowess.  She wants a guy that will enact a three-ring circus, and put on a whole dog-and-pony show to win her affections.  And those are just the other 364 days of the year.
-- Talk about valentine's day?  Her expectations are growing evermore exaggerated.  She wants a guy that will totally make her swoon with heaving bosoms or some crap.
...Uh, okay, now this is being a little demanding.  But I guess saccharine romance-novel-grade theatrics is something that many females want.

-- But then there is a slight shift in her sanity.  Her demands started getting a little outlandish.  At this point her soap-operatic heights are growing a little kooky.
-- She does not want an unemployed broke loser that still lives with his parents.  She does not want an alcoholic loser that sleeps on his friends couch.  Nope, she wants a high-flying wonderful success story because she is a modern woman in charge of her own life and she deserves a guy that treats her like a queen and treats her like gold, dammit.  She wants a guy that is financially secure.  She wants a guy that is emotionally secure.  She wants a guy that is not hiding any demons or skeletons in any closets.  She wants a guy that will give her a life of excitement, she wants a guy that will enthrall her at all times.  She does not want a minimum wage idiot who plays video games and smokes pot all day.  She wants a drippingly romantic perfect guy because she is such a wonderful modern woman that deserves a guy who respects her and treats her like an equal.

They claim that they are adventurous and wild at heart and free spirits.  Therefore they demand that they want a guy who is adventurous and will take them traveling all around the world.  They claim they love art and culture and sophistication.  Therefore they want a guy who will take them to the opera and the ballet.  And who will take them to fancy posh restaurants.

Notice a recurring theme floating through all these demands?  These females want the guy to do all the work.  More specifically, they want a guy that is absolutely perfect in every way.

They say they want a guy that is fascinating.  They want a guy who is intellectually stimulating, presumably because they value intellectual stimulation.  They want a guy who has an interesting job, and they say this is because they like interesting stuff.
Well, if success is so important to you, then why do you not pursue it yourself? ///

The never-ending romantic demands and stuff:  they want a guy to shout it from the rooftops and the mountaintops that he loves her.  They want a guy that is drippingly, saccharinely romantic, enough to give a person diabetes.  They want a guy that will plan extravagant, crazy dates such as take her on hot-air balloon rides, etc. because she is a strong modern woman and she is worth it.  This is as they simultaneously demand that the guy forget about her past, forget about her past mistakes, do not judge her, and just accept her for who she is.

Okay.  But, what are yuuuu doing for the guy?  We know you don't like to cook or generally take care of yourself.  We know you probably do not work a job useful to society or the economy.  So what are yoourr contributions to the relationship?  -the guy has to be the totally romantic one and the swashbuckling hero who comes to inject excitement into your life.  -If these silly little females insist they are a strong capable woman in charge of her own life... then why do they still in some ways expect the guy to be a knight in shining armor for them?  She insists the guy treat her as an "equal."  Notice how much she expects the guy to contribute to the relationship.

Then what is <your> role in the relationship?

*What is this weird groupie tendency that a lot of females seem to display?
This is not merely limited to dumb sluts that would be classified as groupies that are involved in the se, dr, rocknroll scene.  The nasty stuff that rolling stone magazine preaches to be great and wonderful.
(They would rather date a guy that is a doctor or lawyer -- rather than be one themselves.
Rather than becoming an accomplished professional themselves____
What are they trying to do?  I really do not understand.  Do these females think that they will be able to somehow contract that scientific knowledge, skill sets___ through their vaginal mucosa?

-- like science._((((this might alrwy be in the voice rec memo))))__. it never occurred to me that I couldn't.  [[like when gurls ask me,, how did I find the courage or the inclination, or the drive or the encouragement, etc. to pursue a math and science field.

Black People Are Not Cool

I would kind of appreciate it if the media didn’t keep trying to tell me that the lowest degenerate stereotypes of black people are “cool.”  You know what I mean when I say "cool" -- like the popular sexy crowd in high school.

The media keep insisting that gangsta rap is so popular.  I read a blurb in rolling stone magazine once that declared “rap” as the one genre that brings all the races together, no other genre of music has done that, rap promotes racial harmony and allows society to live happily ever after and greet the dawning of a new era (Scar), or something like that.

Interesting.  Did you know that crime amongst Asian youths has skyrocketed in this society over the past ten years?

The media keeps trying to tell us that this style of dress, music, verbiage, etc. utilized by crime-ridden, violence-infested bad part of downtown is something that all dorky white kids aspire to.  The black person in all their du-rag wearing, pants hanging below the azz dragging personal style is the epitome of cool.

...And white people struggling to catch up with them.  As if gangsta-ghetto black people are on the cutting edge of latest fashions, trends, music, all entertainment stuff.  The media portrays white people tripping over their feet, making fools of themselves, trying to win approval and affection of low-class black people, so that they may be crowned “cool.”  That is, cool as defined by ghetto fags in the hood.

They were not of the cool kids at my high school.  They were not the sexy, popular clique ___
Sure, the football team was mostly black.  But that proved nothing.  After football practice, they would trudge[trundle]][[] back to their homes in the bad neighborhoods.  Perhaps this was an artifact of South Carolina living.

Tons of dating shows exhibit a very dorky, geeky white person trying in vain, straining hopelessly to impress a black person.

Tons of black comedians make fun of white people for being sooooo dorky because they don’t know the latest dance craze that is all the rage in the government housing projects.  And white people are like so clueless; hopelessly uncool with their lawn mowers and their... eyeglasses.
Often portray an unpopular sexless white person struggling desperately to be accepted by the kuuullll black hip-hop group.

I feel like all over the music
_Especially that comical, laughable, and ultimately confused mess that was eminem.
Music videos and crap depict an unpopular-beyond-repair white person beating their brains out trying to act like low-class blacks.  With a bunch of black people all around getting really offended and angry like, “how dare the white person mimick us?”

Like that “pretty fly for a white guy” song that came out back in 1998.  It was a hilarious and entertaining song, sure.  But I don’t know a single middle class white boy in real life that rebelled against his own cultural identity so much that he rejected his white origins of suburban neighborhoods, barbecues, and stable two-parent family to go join that social disease.

All these ridiculous teenager movies about high school always feature a black student that has been welcomed with open arms into the ranks of the cool, sexy, popular group.  (Just so we're clear, these high school binge-drinking movies would be equally as laughable even if they did not make it look like cool white kids and cool black kids were the best of friends and hung out in the same social circle.)

Either that or-- they show white kids trying their damndest to emulate low-class black behavior, modes of dress, genre of music.  I think the kids nowadays call them "wiggers."  Back in my day we just called them "gray boys."

Notice that the media conspicuously always points to this social affliction as the forefront of “cool.”  Not one pin-drop word is uttered about any perceived coolness of *middle-class black people* who are normal human beings, who value education and progress and come from stable, loving two-parent homes.

Liberals putting words in conservatives’ mouths

If a conservative says they don't approve of gratuitous sex, you liberals immediately assume that we are okay with violence.  Like the nickelodeon controversy of a tv show with two gay parents.  A lot of people protested that.  Then the liberals immediately hit with their now-predictable knee-jerk response.  Oh so you cons don't like gay people, would you rather have an abusive straight couple?

Ah, excuse me?  When the f--- did the con say they wanted abusive straight parents?  Why the hell do liberals insist on putting words in cons' mouths?

The helen mirren thing.  Someone had the good sense to call her on her bullshit, cut through it, and see through the emperor's no clothes and say what the actress truly had the purpose of behind being an exhibitionist.  None of this philosobabble pseudo-psychology crap.  Almost immediately, a liberal knee-jerked with "why do you Americans hate the naked body but love violence."

Ah, excuse me?  Where in that person's post did they say they wanted to see violence?  You liberal just automatically assumed that the American, by which you most likely meant an overly conservative closed-minded hick redneck, judgmental, must like violence because he/she said he/she was sick of actresses trying desperately to prove their self-worth by clamoring for the approval of the mass media.  Liberals are just as closed-minded and judgmental and pre-judging as ANY conservative they lambast.

No Honour Amongst Sluts

Men are already sluts.  ....And you sluts thought you could compete with them.

In heretofore unrelated facts, women have been competing on level ground with men for things like education, jobs, careers, healthcare, voting, financial independence, money, running for public office, sports.  There are laws in place to protect women from abusive aholes.  All of that is good.

But then for some idiot reason, a few dumb females thought that promiscuity, whoring around, catching STDs, unwanted pregnancies, etc. was the final frontier.  You thought this was the final uncharted territory that women absolutely must stake their claim on.

Oh yeah totally, because if men inhabited that territory, that automatically means women simply MUSST occupy that territory also, totally.  You females thought this nefarious mess was also something for which you needed to be on equal footing with men.  Never mind the plain fact that this particular "equal footing" is not on terrestrial sea level ground.  This "equal footing" is down in the ditch.

You thought you could somehow "get back" at men by way of becoming sluts yourselves.  You were "hurt" by what male sluts did to you in your past, or perhaps you were offended by what men did to women.  (Even though said men did not "do" anything to said women.  Those women were sentient beings that consciously chose to do stupid things that screwed up their own lives.  And now those women have to live with the consequences.)

So you thought you could exact your revenge on those hurtful, slutty men... by having sex with them and never calling them back.

Guffaw.  Seriously?  You really thought this was a legitimate way of getting revenge?  You really thought males would feel "hurt" by a female that has sex with them and then does not bother him with incessant chatter?  Genius, pure genius.  Applause.

Look, you cannot compete with creatures that have no soul.  The depths of their depravity know no bounds.  That is because there <are> no lower limits to their depths.  You’ve heard about how people sometimes hit rock-bottom?  That is sometimes the case.  Except when it comes to sexx and self-destruction, men have no bottoms to their pit.  It is a bottomless pit.

You can compete with people in terms of skill, talent, intelligence, etc.  Those are all valid areas of competition.  You can compete with people for college admission and job acceptance.  This, however, is not something that anyone can enter into with the mindset of "competition."  This is because promiscuity is not an area of "skill."  The only thing it requires -- is that bottomless pit.

You are right of course, that nothing affects them, for the same reason that nothing can "affect" an automaton that is just going through the motions.  Men are but soulless, empty shells that are dead inside.  So, non, in that regard, promiscuity does not affect men, for the simple reason that there is nothing -- soul, spirit, emotions -- to affect.

--
And again, this is all the same self-contradictory, circular, self-contained illogic that I've been saying is wrong with modern sex.

Repeat after me.  There is no way to feel "hurt" by promiscuous sex from strangers if you are *not* having promiscuous sex with those strangers.

Why can't you simply extricate yourself from the equation completely?  That would have been the common sense thing to do.  once you [[encountered upon it, gazed upon its soulless visage, then cringe and realize that merely entertaining the thought was depressing, and then made a pact with yourself to not be embroiled in all that...]]]] countenance,,,