|
Will you remember me when I'm gone? Will you picture in your mind my goofy smile and jumpy, overly excited demeanor? Will you think of the good times we had? Will you remember my good points, will you recall my strengths and successes? Will you forget my faults? Will you forgive my mistakes?
Will you know with no spec of a doubt that I was true to you and, for whatever long or however little length of time we shared, I loved you as a human being? Even if things might have later changed?
Did I live an imprint on your life?
You touched my life. When I'm gone, if you remember me at all, know that no matter whether good or bad you left a mark. Remember me and smile. You mattered.
+RCurrent Mood:  tired Current Music: A matter of trust - Billy Joel |
|
Justice is the most important value to me, closely followed by Respect. Or was it the other way around? Assigning weight to ideas is hard. Some times in the struggle to pursue the former the latter suffers, and other times the tables turn. Most often than not it's a tricky business to juggle them and get the best possible balance.
There can be no trust if there is no respect. There can't be a social contract without justice.
I'm having quite a hard time at the moment coming to terms with the circumstances that have violated both. Betrayal desecrates the very foundation of pacific human coexistence. Yet, betrayal is deeply human.
Today it suddenly struck me that not only the damage is done but that enough damage has already been done. It must stop. This overpowering wrath only ties me to that betrayal, like a millstone weighting me down. I don't want ever to be part of that person's life again, so I must drop the hate and sever the fetters with which I continue to chain myself to this person. The beautiful and wise words of my friends slowly bore through. Like the Fatboy Slim song, drop the hate, forgive each other.
We are only human. Flawed. Its not my place to seek justice in this particular matter. The only thing I can get is respect. Respect from my self to myself first, and then from me to others. Oh, yes, I could do something truly evil (yes, worse) everybody knows it. But I don't want to become that which they think I am. I have so few lines left to cross yet. And enough damage has already been done. I will still seethe with rage for a while but I won't wallow in it. This is a turning point, an epoch.
What was done is done. It will never mend. It was willful, malicious deceit. It is betrayal. It will never be unmade. But I am only human too, flawed, and I too make mistakes. I would like to be forgiven for them. I can't do it now, but in time I will assimilate these events. Right now I will use this fury to fuel my own growth; I will become more than I was. I will use this and turn it into a good thing.
And in due time I will forgive and leave it behind.
+RCurrent Mood:  infuriated Current Music: Perra Arrabalera - Molotov |
|
In fact, I have a tiny surprise for you, but it will take a couple of weeks to finish.
I wonder whether you'll find it before you read this. Most likely not =)
+RCurrent Mood:  mischievous Current Music: Watching me Fall - The Cure |
|
I'm sure I didn't come up with some earth-shattering insight, but I like the way this discussion turned out. I admit I derailed the original discussion a bit, but it was an interesting aside. Some other guy was making an interesting reply to some other dude that summarily dismissed the notion of free will arguing a purely deterministic point of view. I transcribe it here slightly edited but the original whole discussion can be found here.
More significantly: if everything is deterministic based on "physics", could you please tell us where the rules of physics come from, and why they are as they are and not some other way? For instance, why do massive bodies attract and not repel? Why does light travel at the speed it does? At some point there is an arbitrary "decision" as to how things work which cannot be explained by pre-determined rules - unless it's just elephants all the way down...
You were on a roll up to this point. But here you seem to be falling for a different brand of question begging: you are tacitly assuming that there is "a reason" for things to be the way they are. So far the best explanation IMHO is another tautology... Things are the way they are, because that's the way they are. That's the gripe with science that rational religious people have (and yes, they do exist), science can conceivably tell you how the universe works but can't tell you WHY it works that way. To speculate on the motivation for things to be the way they are is outside of the realm of science. Some people dislike this and they look for explanations in meta(beyond) physics. So basically you have two big trends, either the universe "just happened" or it was somehow made. Science could tell you down to the very last quark how the universe works in either case, it doesn't matter to it whether something "put it together like this" or it was just a Big Freak Accident as long as there are strings of cause and effect leading from "A" to "B" to "C" and so forth. Conceivably if the universe was made, and The Maker tweaked it at random here and there —i.e. by performing miracles— that would thwart science's efforts to explain things because it relies on repeatability and pattern-finding. But experience so far tell us that our reality has stable behavior that doesn't change in unpredictable ways. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a maker behind curtains, for all we know s/he/it may be tweaking the world and still staying within its rules. But science won't be able to distinguish intent from random accident because it operates from inside the environment and whether the "rules" were placed or they just sprung from nowhere, they still bind it. My point is that science can't speculate on any motivation behind observed phenomena, including whether motive exists at all or not. That's the reason I brought up my hypothetical Maker, to put forth a little mental experiment; is it conceivable that It may have made the rules so that It can tamper with them? Yes, it is. Not very logical, and it doesn't pass Occam's razor, but why would our hypothetical entity —capable of creating the rules— be bound by those rules? Please note that here I'm not advocating for nor against, merely presenting scenarios.I was trying to point out that science can explain how the universe "is", but not "why". "Why" demands intention otherwise it would be randomness, and devoid of intentionality asking "why" is meaningless. But intentionality (even of things human) is a very tricky business for science to disprove, and by my logic, not being able to explain intentions precludes you to give value judgments over the moral characteristics of the universe. Or in English: science can tell you the mechanics of some phenomenon but it is neutral to it and won't help you decide if it is "good", "bad" or "uncaring". That's the realm of Ethics, a discipline of Philosophy.
Then somebody took disagreed with my tautological explanation and ventured a weaker one, IMHO:
Things are the way they are because that's how we label them. Ah, semantics yes. My girlfriend always complains that we are arguing about what the words mean rather than the core issue so that in truth we are speaking of two or more different things. All I can say is that better-trained minds than mine have been arguing about the subject for centuries. Just for the fun of it think about this: What if language doesn't define the world but the other way around and we label things the way we do because that's the way they are? I can be wrong, but it's my understanding that generally we observe Phenomenon A1, and either consciously or as a result of a prehistoric grunt, then we give it a name whereby Phenomenon A1 then becomes "rain". We shape the words around the world, because the world is out there a-priori. Which is another statement that has been hotly debated, but whether that world is a shadow of Platonic Ideas, an objective reality or other, we still perceive something on average, and we develop our language around that perception. It may seem otherwise because of the way language is taught to us ("Look! this is An Apple"), but you were referring to the actual existence of things ("Oh, I have observed that Phenomenon A1 takes place. I shall name Phenomenon A1 'rain'"...then to another... "Look! this is Rain"). Words don't have meaning in and of themselves, they are labels we hang onto things. If we change the labels, things remain unchanged.
Come to think of it, he may have been referring to an idea that I've commented on before (probably elsewhere, I couldn't find the post) which is that our vocabulary shapes and sometimes limits our knowledge of the world. I was going to rephrase it but I found it, dated December eighteen, two thousand three =)
[ Banality stole my dictionary ]
Thanks to the media, to the habit some of us have to bloat out speech and exaggerate, to those who would see all icons destroyed, language appears to be eroding. Words are beginning to lose their meaning to render instead but pale reflections of what they used to describe. Everything we say, it seems, has to be inflated and decorated with numerous adjectives to make any impact at all. It's the language light, two to go please.
Hell is but an empty crutch without that ominous and dreadful imagery that powered it. Hell, it even sounds funny! And Heaven is but a dull place full of silly-looking fat babies in wings and little fluffy clouds. The word mother has become an insult. To be gay is no longer to be happy but rather to be part of a mistreated, outspoken and belligerent minority that would have us think there are much more of them than there really are. To be nice parallels being stupid, and sin is anything that makes you daring and cool instead of being that boring slob without 'attitude'.
Bleh. I must be bitter because it's still two long days to Lord of the Rings, Return of the King =)
Wow, that's four years of blogging. Reading back I'm enormously relieved to find that I have matured to some extent =)
Update: Nope, that wasn't it. THIS is the one.
+RCurrent Mood:  anxious Current Music: www.di.fm/progressive |
|
I was going to say that I'm very surprised but thinking it through I'm not. But I am amused at the reaction. I think its sad that people can be so blinded by their own vision that they not only can't be bothered to place themselves on another person's shoes, but that they will demand that said person folds to their ideas and will even attack them for not doing so.
( The rest of this rant here... )
[ Apropos ]
I'm not alone
+RCurrent Mood:  amused Current Music: NIN - Capital G |
| » [ Ready are you? What know you of ready? ] |
|---|
Some people fear. They fear happiness, for it may end and bring about the pain. Some people are driven by fear; of loss, of ridicule, of what others will think. Many studies point out that we are more concerned with avoiding hurt than seeking out happiness. I don't know about the rest of the people, but to me knowing this is a good stepping stone towards a life with more emphasis in being happy rather than sidestepping being hurt.
Happiness, it seems, is a very individualized concept. There are as many forms of well-being as humans, and while we all share common traits in sufficiently broad groups the small nuances that make us individuals also mark our tastes and preferences. The biggest boon to my life that 2006 and the people in it brought to my life was learning to be happy with what I do, what I have, who I am.
Research on happiness points out that people adapt. We get used to most given situations, and they lose novelty and that "oh, shiny!" quality to them after a time. Life is by definition dynamic, and by clinging to a fixed set of conditions we seem to have a recipee for misery. My guess is that by learning to use our adaptive capabilities to our advantage we can experience many more moments of "newness" and learn to enjoy more things, cherish change itself. My main gripe with self-help books used to be that they give you these grandiose instructions on how to be happy in overly broad terms like: find out what motivates you and seize it. Uh, yeah, and how do I do that exactly? Well, I found out how entirely by accident. Like in the Nike commercial, you just do it. You go out and try to live. Try out new stuff. Pay attention to people. Pay attention to life, to what we are doing right now.
Another pop-culture quote. There is a scene in Star Wars The Empire Strikes Back when the old jedi master Yoda is scolding the protagonist Luke for not paying attention. "This one a long time have I watched. All his life has he looked away... to the future, to the horizon. Never his mind on where he was. Hmm? What he was doing." I used to look down on people that extracted meaning from seemingly mundane sources as this until it happened to me too. This bit of dialog struck a chord somewhere deep. The future is useful and must be taken into account, planned for; but it doesn't exist. Its an illusion, a hope, an idea. The past is gone, and while its history and made us what we are, its no more than another idea as well. All there is to life is the moment in which we live, and by extracting the most out of that moment is that we can be happy. The mean to do so is left as an exercise to the reader.
Go on, BE happy!
+R
Feb. 14th, 2007 @ 07:16 pm
|
| » [ Optional ] |
|---|
The law should be upheld, respected and obeyed at all times, under any circumstances. If there are inappropiate laws, they should be fought and revised from within the legal frame, not simply overlooked at first instance.
Once a friend told me that there are some laws that must be fought even before they are promulgated, and even if they do get passed they must never be obeyed as fighting them from within the legal system would legitimate them and make them equal with the rest of the body of the law. I agree. There can be very damaging laws that some groups push to pass and their very spirit is so twisted that they can't ever be allowed the smallest spec of respectability. Laws that establish racism, slavery, etc. are easy to identify as repugnant, immoral and therefore subject to be violated and disavowed even if they get published.
But for each of those blatantly "evil" laws that must never be allowed to operate, there is a host of other laws that might be controversial, or simply uncomfortable. Some of them may seem unreasonable to one, but if people simply start choosing wich laws seem correct to them and breaking those that don't, most likely they would tend to obey only those laws that do not impose any obligation or discomfort upon them. The state is given the power to prosecute people that violate the law because law is the social net that binds us and its main purpose is to mediate between those with any kind of power and those with any kind of weakness.
This last days a lot of people in Mexico seemed to think that there are some unreasonable laws that were making the election process difficult, and their simple solution was to ask authority to ignore those laws and follow 'the will of the people'. As romantic as it may be, that is a very stupid thing to ask. People should in fact demand that the government follow the will of the people, but by applying the law. And they should be demanding the congressmen that make said laws to write in them what the people wants. Not simply to ignore it when it seems to get in the way of what they want.
How can they not see that asking the government to ignore the law is opening the door to all kinds of abuses? Are they truly so naive as to think that the govt. would limit itself to break only those laws that 'the people' dislike? Government is made out of that same people, they have the same culture. If given the opportunity, there is nothing to stop them from skipping proper procedure before arrestign somebody. Why shouldn't they even bother about people's rights when prosecuting alleged tax-evasion? Things are never so clear-cut.
+R
Jul. 15th, 2006 @ 08:32 pm
|
| » [ You don;t understand ] |
|---|
My empirical observation is that many people have a hard time grasping ideas that differ from their own. I will venture the theory that this is partially due to the fact that many of the ideas that we have include a clause of exclusivity.
But the farther away one moves from hard scientific fact, the harder it gets to ascertain whether the idea is True. One believes on the idea, but belief is not knowledge; at best it's a suspicion. It then becomes less of an intellectual matter and more of an emotional attachment to said idea.
( read on )
Its true what many have pointed out, that it's illogical and therefore most likely wrong that any conceivable idea can be correct no matter how stupid it may be. But it still hasn't been found one single model that can provide all the answers to all the questions, so I think that while not everybody can be correct at the same time its quite possible that we all hold a piece of The Truth. Many of us will share one common piece and lack another that a second group has and clinging to the notion that ours is the one and only possible correct way of thinking will hardly benefit us. In order to be able to understand the situations where someone holds an idea that is wildly different from one's own, one has to break free of the preconceptions that restrain the mind.
Jun. 7th, 2006 @ 07:16 pm
|
| » [ Indulgencia plenaria ] |
|---|
"An idea agrees with reality, and is therefore true, if and only if it is
successfully employed in human action in pursuit of human goals and interests"
- Dewey
I think that the reason for a moral behavior should be sought and understood as a result of human interaction, and not as something imposed from outside by a foreign intelligence. Furthermore, I think that the pursuit of moral rules and the identification (or design,depending on your point of view) of its ideals should be a process that incorporated many fields, thus making it next to impossible for one single person to come up with a single philosophycal or moral system that can be called complete.
From my limited knowledge on the subjects I gather that the practice is to apply the scientific method to social sciences, which is not bad per se but lends itself to a tendency to dissect everything to it's minimal possible components. Its a process analogous to finding the atom in physics, and then finding the neutrons and electrons on the atom, and then finding the quarks, and so on. In social science this is useful to clean up the body of definitions, so a lexicon akin in principle to the mathematical language can be established and used as a foundation. But then the social sciences (and I am grouping together here disciplines like psychology, sociology and philosphy) sometimes become so narrowly specialized that they lose contact with the rest of the phenomenons that affect the human psique.
The mind adds a layer of complexity unique to the investigation of human endeavors. It is a daunting task to investigate the fringes of the relativist physics for instance and I am not about to substract any merit from it, but I'll try to draw a distinction between so called 'hard' science and the humanist studies. And that is that hard sciences deal with unchanging sets of conditions, while the mind is a dynamic subject. Even if the principle of uncertainty of Heisenberg tells us that we can't know a particle's exact position in a determined given instant, the behavior of the particle is consistently explained by elaborated sets of theories.
I've stated before that ( I'm different from everybody else )
And that ( We are what the words say we are )
That the mind modifies itself even to the point when it can change its own running program is a hard scientific fact. The actual physiology of the brain shifts. The trick is to learn in response to what. Psychology, Neuroscience, even chemistry should be taken in consideration when determining why a person behaves the way s/he does, and whether that behavior is moral. There are hints that point to the existence of a minimun common ground. Nobody want's to be killed by another, for example. From there it follows that to kill another too would be bad, as we can be that other. This idea ties to the previous post.
+R
May. 31st, 2006 @ 11:59 pm
|
| » [ Yeah, Rights ] |
|---|
Protagoras said that "man is the measure of all things". Many have disagreed, mainly because this relativist point of view presents several dilemmas. If taken into the individual level, it means that whatever I think its true is true, regardless of what others think. What is cold to me is cold, wheter you think otherwise. It makes it very hard to establish a very much sought-after universal truth that holds true for everyone under every circumstance.
( You have no rights )
We have rights only if we know them, believe in them, abide by them and can enforce them as a people; as a race. What good is it to a hypothetical's child it's right to live if it dies of hunger on a war-ravaged city? Our rights do not come to us from the natural world, they are born and exist only in human relationships and if we want to excercise them we must oppose those that breach the contract, if nothing more at least out of an egoistical desire of self-preservation. If enough people stop believing in the existance of your rights, they will effectively cease to exist and you will lose all claim to them and to the benefits they procure to you.
May. 16th, 2006 @ 08:21 pm
|
| » [ Useless ] |
|---|
All the mexicans I know agree that our government reeks, and that none of the presidential candidates currently running for office are worth anything. Some of them think that people should nullify ther votes as a sign of protest, the argument being that one should follow the dictates of our conscience. I found a serious flaw in that argument: most people I know that think that way and the people they interact with would vote either for the PRI or the PAN parties. If they nullify their vote, they are effectively giving more weight to the thrid party, the PRD. Nonwithstanding the fact that none of the 3 major parties are worth a damn, hands down the worst of them is the PRD party with it's mesianic leadership that has repeatedly shown utter contempt for the law and an exceedingly populist approach.
Again, said conscience is nothing more than an idea. A mental map of the way one thinks the world works/should work. What I think is that anyone that values conscience so highly would do better analyzing the implications and possible outcomes of their actions. Voting for "none of the above" is a week and rather ineffective way of showing discontent with the way things are running. It is best to actively choose the lesser evil rather than passively let the worse come to pass because of a lack of commitment. The real world is more complicate than the ideas we have of them, and idealistic actions have very little efect. Even Ghandi stood out, rolled his sleeves and actually DID something. To change things one must act, not just dream. One's actions should further the betterment of the state of affairs, not just pamper our sense of self importance.
+R
May. 11th, 2006 @ 08:36 pm
|
| » [ Ideas ] |
|---|
Belief. Powerful, intangible force with a very physical drive. It's ideas that pull us from inside of our brains like a fishing line, sometimes like a chain. Only the natural world is certain, but it's the certainty of ideas and beliefs that we have layered upon our behavior that form the core of our societies. Also, ideas will be our undoing.
When we're not driven by instinct, we act because we believe in what we do. We believe in a God that cannot be proven to exist by any means other than our faith, which is no more than an idea in which we believe with terrible force. We do not believe in a God in the very same way. We live our lives in a race to acumulate money and wealth that are nothing more than concepts, ideas. We want to accumulate material things because we believe that in doing so we are achieveing something bigger than just a pile of stuff. We renounce the race because we believe in alternative ideas.
Most our lives are lived inside our heads, filtered and lead by those things in which we believe.
It is sad when someone cannot realize that most of what they think about the ways in which humanity should beave is nothing more than a set of ideas and they become convinced that their own set is the only valid one. It is tragic when they try to force their ideas upon the rest.
Do believe. Believe with all the might of your body if it pleases you. Just let me do the same even if what I believe is opposed to your views. It is in the realm of physical actions where we have to negotiate so our translated beliefs don't produce actions that will affect negatively those that do not concour with them. Sometimes we must yield so the majority may live relatively peaceful and undisturbed.
Do unto others...
That is an idea I would like everybody to share.
Apr. 19th, 2006 @ 09:07 am
|
| » [ Decision ] |
|---|
The nature of love has shifted inside my head ever so steadily since I first came across the concept. On it's current state, love is a concious effort to build, nourish and protect a relationship born out of feelings and desires and grown into mutually accepted ties.
It may or may not be true that one can't choose whom to fall in love with, but one can and certainly does choose to remain in love.
And thus the frightening force of that first love has become the serene will to walk together on the path that best accomodates two independent wills with individual goals, desires, shortcomings and strenghts. Whatever the distance. Circumstances not whitstanding.
Ideally.
Ideal.
+R
Mar. 10th, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
|
| » [ Religious violence ] |
|---|
I can't understand the rationale behind religious violence. Most religions ostensibly display tolerance and love as their main flags. What obtuse mind does it take to conclude that the best way to spread that message is by killing those with a different view. It's my suspicion that the motivations underneath have nothing to do with the religious facade.
Personally, I have come to believe that in fact there IS a God, and different religions are just regional and cultural manifestations of this same acknowledgment. That is to say, *my* God is the same as Muslims', Catholics', Buddhists', whomever's. It doesn't matter that I call Him Jesus or merely God and some other person calls Him Ganesha. It's just the way in which we relate to Him that varies.
Of course I understand that few people share my views, but that doesn't mean that they are wrong, or that I'm right. What IS wrong without a doubt is the notion that we must impose or view on those that don't share it by whatever means necessary. Sharing is not infecting. We are humans, not viruses forcing our foreign material on a host.
+R
Mar. 8th, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
|
| » [ Different versus Better ] |
|---|
I've had this idea in my head for sometime, and I can't seem to nail it. I believe that we as persons are all different from one another. While it's true that because we are members of one same species, one given society, one particular community, we share a wide common background from where to start building up each one of us has particular characteristics that set us apart and make us individuals.
I've come to think of late that certain individuals notice this, let's say 'uniqueness' , and they don't know what to make of it. Some interpret it the way I do, some regard it in a completely different fashion. And then some others can't handle it. They arrive to this instinctive notion that they are somehow different from others, but they don't fully realize that everybody's different from everybody else, so they feel threatened. And then to deffend themselves against this difference they perceive in others compared to them, they conclude that they have to be better than them and that's why they are not as all the others. I think that's one of the base asumptions behind racism and other forms of intolerance. Those people believe that the ones that are different to them are necessarily inferior, because if they aren't, then the racists themselves are not so special and feel at loss.
Grr.. I have been having trouble sleeping because I go to bed so late and then there is all this hellish noise in the morning. Maybe someday when I'm more rested I can hammer more sense into this.
+R
Jan. 19th, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
|
| » This is fun =) |
|---|
UNFLAPPABLE!
You scored 100 Logic! |
You are impervious to illogical actions. You can reason them to an
amazing skill. You are a god among men. Merry Christmas, Happy New
Year, and don't let it go to your perfectly functioning head. | | |
My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: | You scored higher than 76% on Logic |
|
Jan. 6th, 2006 @ 03:29 pm
|
| » [ Experiment ] |
|---|
Today I entered a discussion with whom I initially labeled an angry feminazi, in her forum where there were also a number of less agressive, more discussion-prone feminists. All in all, it was an interesting exchange. I've always considered myself pro-equity in male-female dealings, much preferring to refer to anybody as a "person" rather as a man or woman. Aside from what I believe to be courtly/gentlemanly gestures such as opening doors of cars and places (which I do for fellow doods as well), and pulling back their chair at a table so they can sit (wich I don't do for fellow doods) I try not to make an issue of genender and succeed most of the time. So I thought I'd put some of my uneducated views on the subject here, then go out and do a little research, and finally post again to see how much -if at all- my views are modified.
Let the gross generalizations begin:
The first thing I noticed was that the more active feminist tend to perceive men in general as hostile and ill intended towards women. I want to think it's a biased point of view, but there are a lot of men out there not helping :P I do see that they concede on individual basis, but as a whole, they feel mistreated and they tend to feel they are denied some opportunities that we men reserve for ourselves.
Come to think of it, on a few former talks on the subject with my female friends, they all have a few anecdotes on the matter. Just to name a few: Their parents refused to pay for their studies because a) they should be looking forward to catch a good husband [whom, by the way, is only as good as his views are similar to those of said parent] or b) they needn't bother themselves with gaining sustenance for that is what their daddy was for [and the fact that super-daddy might not out-live his daughter didn't seem to bother them much, even when he didn't have a fortune to leave her to sustain daddy's sweethart]. Some of them have had to endure the unwanted advances of former bosses, unsure what to do about that: Was it their fault? Maybe they were doing something to encourage them. And whom where they to turn to? There aren't good laws to defend them, and most people on charge of upholding the law are men that think the same as those bosses anyway. And the attractive ones have to withstand anything from wolf-whistles to the filthiest name-calling in the streets if they so happened to wear revealing outfit in the presence of a macho that felt entitled to teasing her merely because they saw her. The list goes on.
I still have to formulate a coherent thought, but something I wanted to say at that forum is that for most men it's hard to understand what is it that they're doing wrong. I mean, how come that shouting at a girl on the street that she's hot should make her feel bad? If she doesn't like it, she shouldn't wear stretch pants!. Without proper consideration, it's very hard for an average male to identify the underlying ideas at work here. And this days, thinking deep is not something we are usually encouraged to do by our cultural environment. Thinking is for intellectuals, I just wanna have phun dood. Even those willing to divert a few neurones to this need a little time to understand why women think we treat them as objects.
I think we treat most people as objects, but I don't mean that as a justification. I just say that on the whole, we only regard people as persons when they are both close to us and we don't have a shallow personality. Otherwise women are second-class objects, good only to use them as sex toys, and other men are just plain objects.
It's somewhat sad to peer into that aspect of a woman's life. As I said before, I don't limit myself to feel sorry for them, pity doesn't help much. All my bosses have been women, and I've always felt good about that. It was as natural as having a guy-boss to me, and I only think about it when this feminism theme comes up. I selected and recomended a girl to succeed me at work based on her qualifications, not gender and she had out-performed the other -male- applicants. But this isn't about me. I think what I want to say -not sure yet- I still view feminism as a movement of angry women trying to turn up the table.
That's why I consider myself to be more of an equal-opportunity sort of guy. From what I've gathered of late, that's what true feminism is, and the other is part of the mist of fear and missinformation that springs from misoginy.
Thank God I'm don't think I'm "too old" or too anything to try to make at least my corner of the world a wee bit better. It would be heaven if we could live in a world where each of us could go as far as we wanted and not as others let us go.
Jan. 5th, 2006 @ 01:39 pm
|
| » [ Procrastination ] |
|---|
The worst thing about procrastination is that it only highlights the situations one is trying to sweep under the carpet when they finally reach us.
Jan. 5th, 2006 @ 11:32 am
|
| » I know somebody who'll love this... |
|---|
Very Easy
Your life has been 22% difficult. |
Based on your family, money, political context, and personal situation
-- during the important years of your development -- it appears your
life was VERY EASY. What does this mean?
Well, the "difficulty" of your life is a measure of how rough you had
it. Relative to the world, you had a pretty good childhood. I'm not
saying it was really easy, just that you weren't gnawing on a belt for
calories. Still though, it wasn't perfect.
I'm not sure what "success" means to you, but whatever it is, you can achieve it. When you do, it'll be that much more impressive.
|
|
I have a new test! Straight males and gay/bi females, check out my brand new How Low Are Your Sex Standards Test | | |
My test tracked 1 variable How you compared to other people your age and gender: | You scored higher than 28% on difficult |
|
Jan. 3rd, 2006 @ 06:35 pm
|
| » Headplunge in a cold pool of ... |
|---|
I'm pulling the 'Mario' here, but I don't intend to keep two logs for long. I don't kid myself into thinking that my deeds or thoughts are all that interesting. But this can be a neat experiment. We'll see where it takes us.
Jun. 21st, 2004 @ 09:45 pm
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
virtualraider's journal