Just because something doesn't last forever, doesn't mean it wasn't worth your while.And just because something doesn't last forever, doesn't mean it wasn't meant to be. Nothing is meant to be forever. Let's savour what is, while it is. And when it ends—maybe soon, maybe almost never (but never quite 'never')—let's not pretend that the ending negated the experience.
not your average single lady's blog
Thursday, July 18, 2019
It wasn't meant to be
Many little pieces of "wisdom" seem (to me) to be kind of selectively blind. Take this old chestnut: "it wasn't meant to be." That's always flung around in reference to something that—for whatever reason—ended. It wasn't meant to be? What do you think it was?? It was as real as anything, for as long as it lasted.
Harassment
Several years ago, I ran into a problem that I'd been fortunate to never experience until then: harassment.
The thing about harassment is you want to argue with the person. Their treatment of you angers you, and they fully give into their own emotions in their interactions with you. You want to sling back the arrows at them, give as good as you get, grab them by the scruff of the neck and rub their ignorant face into the gravelly truth of How To Interact With Humans.
Maybe that would work, for a moment; maybe they'd realize that they neither have nor deserve a monopoly on rights and emotions. But I doubt it.
In fact, maybe they know this. Maybe they feel that by hurling abuse at you, it will provoke you into being extra accommodating or deferential, to prove to them that you are not those offensive things that they describe you as.
Or maybe they don't realize they're being harassing at all.
That knee-jerk simpering reaction is certainly how I responded to the first few incidents. But concede one inch and you know exactly what they'll take before long. Pretty soon you owe them one for some hazy, made-up non-reason, just because you gave them one before.
It's a hell of a mistake to have to learn from, and it doesn't make your inner reaction any easier.
The thing about harassment is you want to argue with the person. Their treatment of you angers you, and they fully give into their own emotions in their interactions with you. You want to sling back the arrows at them, give as good as you get, grab them by the scruff of the neck and rub their ignorant face into the gravelly truth of How To Interact With Humans.
Maybe that would work, for a moment; maybe they'd realize that they neither have nor deserve a monopoly on rights and emotions. But I doubt it.
In fact, maybe they know this. Maybe they feel that by hurling abuse at you, it will provoke you into being extra accommodating or deferential, to prove to them that you are not those offensive things that they describe you as.
Or maybe they don't realize they're being harassing at all.
That knee-jerk simpering reaction is certainly how I responded to the first few incidents. But concede one inch and you know exactly what they'll take before long. Pretty soon you owe them one for some hazy, made-up non-reason, just because you gave them one before.
It's a hell of a mistake to have to learn from, and it doesn't make your inner reaction any easier.
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
The Ruins of These Thirty Years
They say that if something doesn't matter in ten years, it doesn't matter now. They say this to take the pressure off of present stresses, to bring "perspective."
But there is another perspective, equally true. If it matters now, it will matter more in ten years. It will gather 'matter' like a snowball, and in ten years, twenty years, it will be just as sharp a sting, but with the interest of decades of festering.
They don't tell you that you can spare yourself years of distress and possibly permanent sorrow or harm. Fix the foundations when you can, so you don't find yourself in ruins down the road.
But there is another perspective, equally true. If it matters now, it will matter more in ten years. It will gather 'matter' like a snowball, and in ten years, twenty years, it will be just as sharp a sting, but with the interest of decades of festering.
They don't tell you that you can spare yourself years of distress and possibly permanent sorrow or harm. Fix the foundations when you can, so you don't find yourself in ruins down the road.
Monday, February 25, 2019
The Clash of Worldviews
Have you ever noticed that people insist on degrading others in order to prop up their own self worth? It seems like a good quality can't stand on its own; it will inevitably be compared with someone else, some Other, in order to paint itself as superior. I was always the loser, growing up. I guess I still am (though at some
point you outgrow labels), and I see why: the winners are winners
because they need to manufacture losers in order to have their status.
They can't be winners without seeing humanity on a spectrum of worth.
How do you speak out against that kind of thing, when it's so ubiquitous, insidious, and any opposition is ridiculed as mere fat-guy defensive action? That's just something ugly people say. If you try to speak up for the downtrodden, suddenly you're the hateful one, the person who's trespassing in the goddess's realm, stepping on her right of free speech. How do you point out hypocrisy? How do you find your place in a world that rejects the open-mindedness you stand for, and makes you feel uncomfortable everywhere you go — and either ridicules you for your discomfort, or patronizingly tries to help you overcome this "flaw."
Expressing these things is hard. When you're single, it often feels like nobody has your back. [It's not necessarily a Single Person problem, and I don't really consider myself Single in any case—'single' implies 'searching/available'—but it's approximately the position I'm viewing it from.] Society is a non-single entity that doesn't understand or respect your needs, wants, and values, because they're so foreign from its own. This world that superficially preaches "embracing yourself" truly believes that the You that you've embraced is nothing more than self-delusion, than flimsily justifying a lifestyle that nobody would choose. Nobody is really there for you when you need them most. They're there for you when it suits them, and when it doesn't interfere with their real obligations.
And that's kind of the crux: you're not real. You don't inhabit the world the way others do, and therefore you don't have the right to comment on it. At the same time, the world you do inhabit is not permitted to be real, your life and needs and preferences and habits are not permitted to be normal. Your life experience is discounted.
How can you find a place in this world when everything in your life is dismissed as incomplete? How can you be fulfilled when society tells you that you simply are not? No matter how fulfilled you truly feel?
How do you speak out against that kind of thing, when it's so ubiquitous, insidious, and any opposition is ridiculed as mere fat-guy defensive action? That's just something ugly people say. If you try to speak up for the downtrodden, suddenly you're the hateful one, the person who's trespassing in the goddess's realm, stepping on her right of free speech. How do you point out hypocrisy? How do you find your place in a world that rejects the open-mindedness you stand for, and makes you feel uncomfortable everywhere you go — and either ridicules you for your discomfort, or patronizingly tries to help you overcome this "flaw."
Expressing these things is hard. When you're single, it often feels like nobody has your back. [It's not necessarily a Single Person problem, and I don't really consider myself Single in any case—'single' implies 'searching/available'—but it's approximately the position I'm viewing it from.] Society is a non-single entity that doesn't understand or respect your needs, wants, and values, because they're so foreign from its own. This world that superficially preaches "embracing yourself" truly believes that the You that you've embraced is nothing more than self-delusion, than flimsily justifying a lifestyle that nobody would choose. Nobody is really there for you when you need them most. They're there for you when it suits them, and when it doesn't interfere with their real obligations.
And that's kind of the crux: you're not real. You don't inhabit the world the way others do, and therefore you don't have the right to comment on it. At the same time, the world you do inhabit is not permitted to be real, your life and needs and preferences and habits are not permitted to be normal. Your life experience is discounted.
How can you find a place in this world when everything in your life is dismissed as incomplete? How can you be fulfilled when society tells you that you simply are not? No matter how fulfilled you truly feel?
Wednesday, March 30, 2016
No Laughing Matter
There are two things that I will never joke at someone's expense about. (There are generally more than two, but these two are nolle prosequi material.)
1. A person's name. Even Drumpf. (Perhaps especially Drumpf; after all, it's not like you need to go excavating the ancestral past to find criticisms of that guy.)
No matter how unique you think your humour is, I guarantee you: the person has heard that joke before. Dozens of times. Maybe they even still give you a pity-laugh to stifle the sound of their eyes rolling.
2. What Bertie Wooster would call a person's "outer crust." Unless it's something foreign, like crumbs or something (which, you'll note, people never mention, and just leave you to discover it hours later in the mirror. Thanks.), you can rest assured that a person is much more intimately aware of what is on display than you are. There's simply no tact or sense in pointing out someone's unibrow, mole, acne, tendency to turn deep vermilion when embarrassed or just after the dreaded 20-minute-run PE class, birthmarks... the list goes on. I include tattoos in this, if the comment comes from a total stranger who would otherwise comment on the weather. For everything on this list, they know about it. They know you can see it. No need to verbalize.
There's something private about a person's body—even the visible parts—that merits respect.
1. A person's name. Even Drumpf. (Perhaps especially Drumpf; after all, it's not like you need to go excavating the ancestral past to find criticisms of that guy.)
No matter how unique you think your humour is, I guarantee you: the person has heard that joke before. Dozens of times. Maybe they even still give you a pity-laugh to stifle the sound of their eyes rolling.
2. What Bertie Wooster would call a person's "outer crust." Unless it's something foreign, like crumbs or something (which, you'll note, people never mention, and just leave you to discover it hours later in the mirror. Thanks.), you can rest assured that a person is much more intimately aware of what is on display than you are. There's simply no tact or sense in pointing out someone's unibrow, mole, acne, tendency to turn deep vermilion when embarrassed or just after the dreaded 20-minute-run PE class, birthmarks... the list goes on. I include tattoos in this, if the comment comes from a total stranger who would otherwise comment on the weather. For everything on this list, they know about it. They know you can see it. No need to verbalize.
There's something private about a person's body—even the visible parts—that merits respect.
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Meme-mongering
My last post's rant against the viral goddess-attitude opened up a tangent that I wanted to to explore a bit more: memes.
The ephemera-oriented humanities scholar in me is fascinated by memes. They rapidly disseminate culture, they evolve quickly as they do so, and they very soon become subjects of their own discussion. They're a very relevant medium (among many others) by which we write and read culture, and for that reason alone I have always felt that it should go without saying for the literary humanities approach to encompass this kind of cultural artifact.
First, a digression is necessary to set up a bit of backstory:
Year Zero
Quite a few years ago, I had a significant passion for the then-current Nine Inch Nails Year Zero ARG that was taking shape through the combined efforts of people all over the world. The multimedia, immersive, global, self-creating nature of it was exactly the kind of thing I felt compelled to focus on in my graduate work (though that was still a few years down the road), and it felt like an exciting new direction that the humanities' literary branch (best known by restrictive terms like 'Literature' or 'English') could follow. Later, when I started to dabble in the literary-theoretical side of the more ephemeral and digital textual experiences that today's human culture is rich with, this ARG inspired the strongest scholarly passion inside me that I've ever experienced.
It was particularly captivating to my twenty-something self, highly susceptible to resentment-mongering and eager to protest against the political injustices of the oughties. Participating in the ARG was more than interacting with a textual experience: it was being part of a real movement with real objectives for achieving a better world. It became a cause that both grew and spread its message in the methodology of our time: virally. The catchphrase of the movement was "Art is Resistance," inspiring people to realize their voices could be heard, and that these voices could be powerful.
The indignance seemed to be about the voice and opinion of "the people" being ignored, and the movement was for taking back power, taking back the democratic voice. But the hype became more about the hype than the message, or more about the idea of a message than any actual message substance. People saw the phrase "Art is Resistance" as an epiphany-in-itself, as some great truth unlocked and now known. But the phrase was meant to inspire action, not serve as an action on its own. "You have a voice: use it, be heard." Okay... great? What's the actual message? The struggle was for the voice, but there was no message in the voice. It was a movement without awareness of its own meaning, a rallying cry without any semantic logic.
Malevolent Virus
Art is Resistance is essentially an example of a well-meaning meme with ambitions of positive social impact, that had limited success due to the very nature of memes as shallow signifiers whose meaning (if any) becomes stripped away in viral transmission.
The bitchess meme, though, has the thinnest of well-intentioned(?) disguises. Its unselfconscious fight-injustice-with-injustice approach merely replaces the perceived problem with a rephrasing/redirecting of that same problem. It's another arena where one group is elevated through degrading another—the old privilege quandary. Again, if we worked toward a society that measured the value of things objectively rather than relationally, far fewer people would be irrevocably damaged.
It's easy for causes to go viral these days thanks to the internet. But in practice, the things that are most viral become memes that are unencumbered by any real substance. Just take any meme, suppress the automatic omg-so-true response, and strip it down to its essence.
Saying that hard-to-handle women know their worth, for example, is pretty much like saying "You have worth; claim it, be respected."
And the ones demanding loyalty: "You deserve blind and unquestioning loyalty. You can do no wrong, and whatever attitudes and ideals you hold [which, incidentally, are irrelevant for some reason], all people everywhere should espouse them."
It's like a TL;DR without the TL even being offered.
The whole concept of "deserving" in these memes (which isn't explicit in the two examples I've used but certainly appears abundantly enough) is a non-sequitur. Memes have a universal appeal, but the idea of deserving is a context-dependent concept specific to the individual. You deserve this implies that Somebody is malevolently trying to prevent you from having it. That's just not the case. There is no such thing as a unilateral interaction. Where there are humans, there are always multiple perspectives and sides.
Memes are like a virus: they replicate themselves, spread quickly, and can be more resilient than facts. Don't be that person.
The ephemera-oriented humanities scholar in me is fascinated by memes. They rapidly disseminate culture, they evolve quickly as they do so, and they very soon become subjects of their own discussion. They're a very relevant medium (among many others) by which we write and read culture, and for that reason alone I have always felt that it should go without saying for the literary humanities approach to encompass this kind of cultural artifact.
First, a digression is necessary to set up a bit of backstory:
Year Zero
Quite a few years ago, I had a significant passion for the then-current Nine Inch Nails Year Zero ARG that was taking shape through the combined efforts of people all over the world. The multimedia, immersive, global, self-creating nature of it was exactly the kind of thing I felt compelled to focus on in my graduate work (though that was still a few years down the road), and it felt like an exciting new direction that the humanities' literary branch (best known by restrictive terms like 'Literature' or 'English') could follow. Later, when I started to dabble in the literary-theoretical side of the more ephemeral and digital textual experiences that today's human culture is rich with, this ARG inspired the strongest scholarly passion inside me that I've ever experienced.
It was particularly captivating to my twenty-something self, highly susceptible to resentment-mongering and eager to protest against the political injustices of the oughties. Participating in the ARG was more than interacting with a textual experience: it was being part of a real movement with real objectives for achieving a better world. It became a cause that both grew and spread its message in the methodology of our time: virally. The catchphrase of the movement was "Art is Resistance," inspiring people to realize their voices could be heard, and that these voices could be powerful.
 |
| Year Zero: Art is Resistance |
Malevolent Virus
Art is Resistance is essentially an example of a well-meaning meme with ambitions of positive social impact, that had limited success due to the very nature of memes as shallow signifiers whose meaning (if any) becomes stripped away in viral transmission.
The bitchess meme, though, has the thinnest of well-intentioned(?) disguises. Its unselfconscious fight-injustice-with-injustice approach merely replaces the perceived problem with a rephrasing/redirecting of that same problem. It's another arena where one group is elevated through degrading another—the old privilege quandary. Again, if we worked toward a society that measured the value of things objectively rather than relationally, far fewer people would be irrevocably damaged.
It's easy for causes to go viral these days thanks to the internet. But in practice, the things that are most viral become memes that are unencumbered by any real substance. Just take any meme, suppress the automatic omg-so-true response, and strip it down to its essence.
And the ones demanding loyalty: "You deserve blind and unquestioning loyalty. You can do no wrong, and whatever attitudes and ideals you hold [which, incidentally, are irrelevant for some reason], all people everywhere should espouse them."It's like a TL;DR without the TL even being offered.
The whole concept of "deserving" in these memes (which isn't explicit in the two examples I've used but certainly appears abundantly enough) is a non-sequitur. Memes have a universal appeal, but the idea of deserving is a context-dependent concept specific to the individual. You deserve this implies that Somebody is malevolently trying to prevent you from having it. That's just not the case. There is no such thing as a unilateral interaction. Where there are humans, there are always multiple perspectives and sides.
Memes are like a virus: they replicate themselves, spread quickly, and can be more resilient than facts. Don't be that person.
 |
| Translation: Men's feelings mean nothing, women are infallible, and the onus of making things work is purely the man's responsibility. |
Monday, July 13, 2015
The Goddess's Contempt
One of the cultural tropes that inspires the most outrage inside me is the idea of the Woman as Goddess. It outrages me for two main reasons: 1) It elevates the woman to a superhuman, magical, do-no-wrong status, and 2) It strips "mortal" men and women of their rights to have human emotions and attitudes that (subjectively) negatively impact the goddess.
The goddess's attitude is: He who does not worship Me is against Me. Everything in the universe is subservient to her magical inner world. Her opinion of others defines their objective worth, and her good opinion is a magnanimous gift that people should be grateful to obtain and desperate to keep. People who do not accord her whims the divine respect they demand find themselves the object of contempt—and the goddess is keen to make her contempt publicly and conspicuously known.
Why do I hate the idea of womanhood as something magical and idolized?
Because it is a practice of contempt, of inequality. It's a poisoned attitude, no matter how well-intentioned. It reflects the hierarchical attitude of everything-on-a-spectrum that I've written about before, and the ultimate arrogance of placing oneself at the top of that hierarchy.
This contemptuous attitude is the kind of garbage that infests online spaces. It's often met with reactions like "OMG SO TRUE," and gets interpreted as some profound epiphany. Bad enough that it exists in the first place, but the way that it's upheld as some pillar of magical truth is despicable and damaging.
It's also a hypocritical attitude, a practice of double-standards. The entitled woman can "cut people off without hesitation, no explanation, and no warning." People in her world are required to be perfect, and if they show any imperfection they have lost her good opinion irrevocably. But if she were to be in the wrong, you can be sure that she would expect to be accepted flaws and all; she would demand another chance again and again, and "anything less [would be] bullshit".
It is the most beautiful thing in the world to realize and embrace that you are human, and to live in a world connected by all kinds of people, treating one another with the equality that is fundamental to the very idea of being human. Why would you want to transcend that, and thereby break it? What is it about humanity that makes you think you're above it? What is it about yourself that makes you think your emotions and needs are more precious and valuable than those of others? What makes you deserve second chances while others don't even deserve explanation? When did the word "bitchess" become a word to own and flaunt as though it were a royal title? When did memes become the authority on acceptable social conduct, and why do we attribute so much meaning to them when they're often the thoughtless ramblings of a self-centered mind?
It's a sociopathic attitude. Setting yourself above others is an act of violence and ugliness, and extreme mistreatment of the people you emotionally affect through your contempt.
I've mentioned the ill-fated Roman triumvirate before, but it's relevant again. The triumvirate consisted of three men: one who could tolerate being paralleled, but not surpassed; one who could only tolerate being supreme and therefore unparalleled; and a third who was content to be average. The triumvirate crumbled because of the first two members' incompatible views; if it were a logical puzzle, it would have no solution.
That's what the goddess/bitchess attitude is: illogical. Incompatible in a society worth living in. Monopolizing all value, worth, and validity. Contemptuous, toxic, and emotionally abusive.
 |
| "I'm arbitrary and whimsical, but it's ok because #entitled#divinerightofbitchess" |
The goddess's attitude is: He who does not worship Me is against Me. Everything in the universe is subservient to her magical inner world. Her opinion of others defines their objective worth, and her good opinion is a magnanimous gift that people should be grateful to obtain and desperate to keep. People who do not accord her whims the divine respect they demand find themselves the object of contempt—and the goddess is keen to make her contempt publicly and conspicuously known.
 |
| Where do I even start? |
Why do I hate the idea of womanhood as something magical and idolized?
Because it is a practice of contempt, of inequality. It's a poisoned attitude, no matter how well-intentioned. It reflects the hierarchical attitude of everything-on-a-spectrum that I've written about before, and the ultimate arrogance of placing oneself at the top of that hierarchy.
 |
| "golden rulez r 4 other ppl" |
This contemptuous attitude is the kind of garbage that infests online spaces. It's often met with reactions like "OMG SO TRUE," and gets interpreted as some profound epiphany. Bad enough that it exists in the first place, but the way that it's upheld as some pillar of magical truth is despicable and damaging.
It's also a hypocritical attitude, a practice of double-standards. The entitled woman can "cut people off without hesitation, no explanation, and no warning." People in her world are required to be perfect, and if they show any imperfection they have lost her good opinion irrevocably. But if she were to be in the wrong, you can be sure that she would expect to be accepted flaws and all; she would demand another chance again and again, and "anything less [would be] bullshit".
 |
| (but not anybody else's worth) |
It is the most beautiful thing in the world to realize and embrace that you are human, and to live in a world connected by all kinds of people, treating one another with the equality that is fundamental to the very idea of being human. Why would you want to transcend that, and thereby break it? What is it about humanity that makes you think you're above it? What is it about yourself that makes you think your emotions and needs are more precious and valuable than those of others? What makes you deserve second chances while others don't even deserve explanation? When did the word "bitchess" become a word to own and flaunt as though it were a royal title? When did memes become the authority on acceptable social conduct, and why do we attribute so much meaning to them when they're often the thoughtless ramblings of a self-centered mind?
It's a sociopathic attitude. Setting yourself above others is an act of violence and ugliness, and extreme mistreatment of the people you emotionally affect through your contempt.
I've mentioned the ill-fated Roman triumvirate before, but it's relevant again. The triumvirate consisted of three men: one who could tolerate being paralleled, but not surpassed; one who could only tolerate being supreme and therefore unparalleled; and a third who was content to be average. The triumvirate crumbled because of the first two members' incompatible views; if it were a logical puzzle, it would have no solution.
That's what the goddess/bitchess attitude is: illogical. Incompatible in a society worth living in. Monopolizing all value, worth, and validity. Contemptuous, toxic, and emotionally abusive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)