So I've been gone for ages... not like you're surprised, amirite? But during that time I've been out and about in the Real World, forming a gay-straight alliance at my school. Here's how it's been:
A long, long time ago--well, last summer at least--I was miles deep in queer & gender theory trying to figure out "what" I was. And I began to get kind of angry that my school didn't have a GSA. It wasn't even that I wanted to be part of one; I just wanted to go to the KIND of school that would have one.
School started up in August. It was confirmed: no GSA existed. Eventually I mentioned it to my old English teacher, and he told me that we used to have one, but it died out when the sponsor retired. He bet me I wouldn't actually start one because I "didn't seem like that kind of person." I was offended, but figured he was right.
The idea never left me though. Meanwhile, an acquaintance was putting together a club herself, so I got to see the process. Finally, I decided that, fuck it, I am going to make the GSA happen, and Fuck anyone who says I can't.
The first step was contacting the principals. My school has about four of them, so I picked out the most liberal and emailed him with a brief, informal proposal for a GSA. He emailed me back a week later. He seemed accepting enough, but he said we had to meet in person to discuss it. The meeting was set up for the next week.
By now it's early December. I bring along my once-conservative friend, "John." We go into the principal's office, and I'm nervous as fuck. I have no idea what to expect. The principal was actually fairly cool about it. Well, cool on the surface; I realized later he was being a douche. He was open to the idea (because he knew we'd sue) but he wanted us to make it a club for ALL marginalized groups ("bury the gay"). I said we'd think about that, and I conceded it could work. He told us we had to write up a formal proposal and find a sponsor, then there would be a meeting with all of the principals & they'd decide to make it official or not.
So I wrote up a proposal. I actually wrote it right after the meeting, but by the time I'd gotten it edited and blessed by my friends, Christmas vacation was approaching. We decided to wait until after break to submit it. No luck finding a sponsor; that English teacher was too busy with family stuff. Whatever--"deal with that later."
January. A week after school resumes, I put the proposal in the principal's school mailbox. He liked it, said it looked good, but we still needed a sponsor before we could move forward.
At this point, we were kind of stuck. No-one knew anyone who wanted to sponsor the club AND had time for it. Before long though, we had a marvelous stroke of luck. I heard someone say that this girl was going around petitioning students for a GSA. Everyone assumed we were connected, although I hadn't known of her until then. I was intrigued.
Immediately after this discovery, my other friend, "Rob," said he'd heard I was starting a GSA--and guess what, so was he. He had enlisted the girl to help him, and they already had a sponsor for us! I was ecstatic. I filled him in on my side of things, and we resolved to go to the principal with joined forces.
I emailed the principal again, telling him we'd found a sponsor, as well as members. He wanted the teacher to tell him personally, so I stopped in and let her know.
We had a couple more nothing-meetings with the principals. The first of which (in early February) was to present ourselves as a unified group and figure out how/when we were actually going to be approved. Apparently, we didn't have to go to that meeting--it was just for the principals and other admin people. After we were approved, we had to have another meeting with a different principal to find out how were allowed to publicize our new group, Spectrum.
By this time it was mid/late February, and we were already having almost weekly meetings--usually just small groups, maybe 5 students each time--to plan out our vision for the club. We (well, I) wrote bylaws, rules, format for meetings, discussion topics--everything. We planned out safe zones and ways to respond to any harassment we'd run into. The sponsor was a big help; she had experience running a GSA at a different school.
We were also starting to plan for Day of Silence, which was 15 April. I registered online and the sponsor asked the principals if they would let students keep silent during class. They took forever getting back to us...
In mid-March, we had our first "real" meeting. Everyone who'd been involved thus far was told to spread the word. We decided to keep it non-threatening and focus on "misconceptions of LGBT+ people" and play get-to-know-you games. About 10 people showed up, including two or three new people. It was pretty awesome. Rob and I led the group in introducing ourselves, we briefly discussed queer things, and then played Apples-to-Apples for a good half-hour or more. I had baked rainbow-frosted cookies, which were a big hit, if I do say so myself. All in all, great start to the club.
After spring break, we had another meeting. We talked about same-sex marriage, and I made a case against it (see: http://queerkidssaynomarriage.wordpress.com/). It was all good fun though. We had a lot of new people, though the total number was still about 10. We set plans for DOS, handed out stickers and speaking cards, made plans to put up posters, all that stuff.
A few days after that meeting, the principals finally responded to our request for DOS. They said we would have to answer if called on in class--basically passing on responsibility to the teachers. URGH. I was furious. DOS was in a week and they were telling us this NOW?! Well, whatever. Nothing to be done.
A member of Spectrum made posters for us, but the principals jerked us around in approving them. By the time they were put up, it was Wednesday.
Nevertheless, DOS was pretty awesome. Most teachers were good about it, and there were no incidents. We had a break-the-silence meeting after school. AND WOW! About 15-20 people showed up, some old, some new. One person I had invited after seeing them participate in DOS earlier that day. I was pumped. It was a little intimidating. I'm not very good at getting people's attention and keeping people on topic, and it only gets harder with a bigger group. But overall, it was amazing. Although people started leaving less than an hour into it, we were still going strong 2 hrs in, when the sponsor had to cut us off so she could go home! The discussion was great. Everyone was so TOGETHER and... just yeah. Wow.
At that moment, I considered my goal of starting a gay-straight alliance complete. I had created a support system not just for myself, but for anyone who needed one. At this point, we will continue to have regular (every 2 weeks) meetings centered on various topics. At the end of this year, we will elect official officers. Next year will be smoother, better. But this year is pretty good itself.
There are several things to take away here:
1. If you want to do something E.G. start a queer club, AT LEAST try. And try hard. You never know how it will work out. At my school, all the pieces just fell into place and it WORKED. You owe it to yourself and all the queer people at your school to at least try.
2. The administration can be douches, but your response is what's important. Don't give up if your principal ignores you, or claims to be too busy, or otherwise makes things difficult. Admins like to use a "pocket veto." They hope you'll just go away, so they don't have to actually make a case against you. (That would give you something to refute.) Just keep pushing, and do so with a smile on your face. Even if it's a fuck-you smile.
3. Start out small. Some people might get discouraged if they go to the first meeting and only a couple of people show up. But this is actually a good thing! As the leader of a club, it's important to be familiar with all the members, so you can be responsive to their needs. Starting out small gives you a chance to get to know everyone personally. Each meeting, a few more people will show up, and eventually, you'll have a grand show going on. But for now, enjoy making a homey, close-knit group.
I guess that's all I have to say. Starting Spectrum has taken a fair amount of work and tonnes of time, but it's well worth it. Looks good on the resume too, haha.
17 April 2011
06 November 2010
Gender, An Explanation
So despite my last post about hating to come out, I've decided to tell a couple more people about my gender. First on the list is my old English teacher, who is a sort of mentor/father figure to me. He's very tolerant and aware of queer issues, so I'm not worried about him freaking out about it. However, it has made me think about how to define my gender in a way that other (cisgender) people can understand, or at least not be completely confused.
I identify as part of both genderqueer and transgender communities. For me, these are umbrella terms; I usually call myself a "null-gender guy." I am aware that many people would see that as self-contradictory--I myself once thought so. But I am wiser now.
No sane person disputes the existence of transsexuals, so we can conclude that physical sex stands independent of gender. Everyone can also agree that there are cisgender men who are feminine and cisgender women who are masculine. Therefore, we can fairly say that femininity and masculinity (gender roles*) are independent of both physical sex and gender identity.
---
*Perhaps the phrase I want is "gender expression" or even "attributes"; this is blurry to me. But that's just semantics. The case stands.
---
We also must acknowledge the contrast between two sorts of masculine females--masculine women and masculine transmen. Although both are physically female and adopt the same gender role, their gender identities are different. Gender identity is tricky to explain; it is just an innate feeling of "man," "woman," or something else. Note also that there exists both masculine men and feminine men; gender identity is independent of both physical sex and the gender role.
So, we can now see that physical sex, gender role, and gender identity are not at all codependent, despite the binary "female=feminine=woman" or "male=masculine=man" dogma. Once we stop seeing these aspects as all tied up with each other, gender as a subject becomes much more clear. I'll be the example:
Physical Sex
I am female. I am not male or intersex.
Gender Role
I am null-gender. I am not particularly feminine or masculine. I do not care to label individual aspects of my personality as such.
Gender Identity
I identify as a guy. I am certainly not a woman, but I'm not really a man either. As least where I live, "guy" is used as a fairly neutral descriptor, and it would not be at all odd to greet a group of women with "hey, guys!" Of course, in the singular form, it usually refers to a man, but that works for me. I do feel closer to a man than a woman. And, I think I would feel less social dysphoria if perceived as male. Let's just say that if I were physically male, I wouldn't feel a need to ponder my gender so often. So, "guy" it is.
We can put these individual traits together to form a coherent picture of a person's gender (female/null-gender/guy). Of course the interplay of the individual traits will give rise to an identity greater than the sum of its parts, similar to Myers-Briggs personality types. But it's a start.
Coming out is going to be scary. I get anxious just thinking about it. But now that I can fully articulate my identity, it will be easy for others to understand, and in turn, easier for them to accept. Here's hoping.
I identify as part of both genderqueer and transgender communities. For me, these are umbrella terms; I usually call myself a "null-gender guy." I am aware that many people would see that as self-contradictory--I myself once thought so. But I am wiser now.
No sane person disputes the existence of transsexuals, so we can conclude that physical sex stands independent of gender. Everyone can also agree that there are cisgender men who are feminine and cisgender women who are masculine. Therefore, we can fairly say that femininity and masculinity (gender roles*) are independent of both physical sex and gender identity.
---
*Perhaps the phrase I want is "gender expression" or even "attributes"; this is blurry to me. But that's just semantics. The case stands.
---
We also must acknowledge the contrast between two sorts of masculine females--masculine women and masculine transmen. Although both are physically female and adopt the same gender role, their gender identities are different. Gender identity is tricky to explain; it is just an innate feeling of "man," "woman," or something else. Note also that there exists both masculine men and feminine men; gender identity is independent of both physical sex and the gender role.
So, we can now see that physical sex, gender role, and gender identity are not at all codependent, despite the binary "female=feminine=woman" or "male=masculine=man" dogma. Once we stop seeing these aspects as all tied up with each other, gender as a subject becomes much more clear. I'll be the example:
Physical Sex
I am female. I am not male or intersex.
Gender Role
I am null-gender. I am not particularly feminine or masculine. I do not care to label individual aspects of my personality as such.
Gender Identity
I identify as a guy. I am certainly not a woman, but I'm not really a man either. As least where I live, "guy" is used as a fairly neutral descriptor, and it would not be at all odd to greet a group of women with "hey, guys!" Of course, in the singular form, it usually refers to a man, but that works for me. I do feel closer to a man than a woman. And, I think I would feel less social dysphoria if perceived as male. Let's just say that if I were physically male, I wouldn't feel a need to ponder my gender so often. So, "guy" it is.
We can put these individual traits together to form a coherent picture of a person's gender (female/null-gender/guy). Of course the interplay of the individual traits will give rise to an identity greater than the sum of its parts, similar to Myers-Briggs personality types. But it's a start.
Coming out is going to be scary. I get anxious just thinking about it. But now that I can fully articulate my identity, it will be easy for others to understand, and in turn, easier for them to accept. Here's hoping.
14 October 2010
"Coming Out"
I am out to only a handful of people, and I don't plan on outing myself much more. As someone who is both genderqueer and asexual, I often (am made to) feel guilty about not being out to people, as though it's a missed opportunity to educate them. But I do at least have reasons.
For one thing, I am not secretive about my orientation or gender. I may be in the closet, but the door is open. If people care to look in, I'll gladly meet them with explanations. I just do not care to broadcast personal information--of any kind. And how would I broadcast it? I wear jeans and T-shirts, my hair is atypical for my sex, I have never dated or expressed attraction to people of any gender. It's just hard for people to perceive a "lack" of something as an actual identity. If you're a gay man, you can just show interest in a guy, and you're out. But asexuals have to explicitly tell people that we "do not experience sexual attraction," which is just an awkward thing to do.
The other reason I'm not really out is that I don't think people would believe me. I fear that anyone I tell will laugh it off, and say of course not! Of course you're not asexual! You'll want sex when you're older! Of course you're not trans! You're just going through a phase, all teenagers do! You're just trying to be different, you're just thinking about it too much, you're just confused!
What would I even do if someone told me that? Not some jackass on the Internet, but an actual person that I cared for enough to tell? Others already tell me they know me better than I know myself in regards to having children. How would their reactions be to queerness? And then even worse is secretly thinking I'm confused/whatever, and "humoring" me. Patronizing me. Oh, okay, whatever you say! Mhm!
Even if they genuinely believe me at first, my identity is in near-constant flux. Sometimes just the specific labels I use change, but other times the whole concept shifts. I accept the fluidity as a natural part of discovering myself while I'm still developing. (Of course, we're always developing to some extent.) But people who are reluctant to trust me when I originally come out to them definitely won't believe me if I end up "changing my mind" later!
For a real life example, I came out to a close, but conservative, friend as an "androgyne who likes girls." And I'm happy he knows that! But then later, it's no longer accurate; now I am a "null-gender asexual person." If I purposefully allow him to continue thinking of me in a way that's outdated, it's like lying. He has a false notion of me. We're back to square one--but worse, because now he thinks he truly knows my identity. However, if I do "update" him, he'll think I don't really know myself at all! My queerness will loose credibility. And if I change my descriptors again and update him again? Say goodbye to any remaining belief.
I do wish people could know my exact identity and accept it and be fine, but between this whole credibility issue and the general awkwardness of explicitly coming out, I don't plan on leaving the closet any time soon.
For one thing, I am not secretive about my orientation or gender. I may be in the closet, but the door is open. If people care to look in, I'll gladly meet them with explanations. I just do not care to broadcast personal information--of any kind. And how would I broadcast it? I wear jeans and T-shirts, my hair is atypical for my sex, I have never dated or expressed attraction to people of any gender. It's just hard for people to perceive a "lack" of something as an actual identity. If you're a gay man, you can just show interest in a guy, and you're out. But asexuals have to explicitly tell people that we "do not experience sexual attraction," which is just an awkward thing to do.
The other reason I'm not really out is that I don't think people would believe me. I fear that anyone I tell will laugh it off, and say of course not! Of course you're not asexual! You'll want sex when you're older! Of course you're not trans! You're just going through a phase, all teenagers do! You're just trying to be different, you're just thinking about it too much, you're just confused!
What would I even do if someone told me that? Not some jackass on the Internet, but an actual person that I cared for enough to tell? Others already tell me they know me better than I know myself in regards to having children. How would their reactions be to queerness? And then even worse is secretly thinking I'm confused/whatever, and "humoring" me. Patronizing me. Oh, okay, whatever you say! Mhm!
Even if they genuinely believe me at first, my identity is in near-constant flux. Sometimes just the specific labels I use change, but other times the whole concept shifts. I accept the fluidity as a natural part of discovering myself while I'm still developing. (Of course, we're always developing to some extent.) But people who are reluctant to trust me when I originally come out to them definitely won't believe me if I end up "changing my mind" later!
For a real life example, I came out to a close, but conservative, friend as an "androgyne who likes girls." And I'm happy he knows that! But then later, it's no longer accurate; now I am a "null-gender asexual person." If I purposefully allow him to continue thinking of me in a way that's outdated, it's like lying. He has a false notion of me. We're back to square one--but worse, because now he thinks he truly knows my identity. However, if I do "update" him, he'll think I don't really know myself at all! My queerness will loose credibility. And if I change my descriptors again and update him again? Say goodbye to any remaining belief.
I do wish people could know my exact identity and accept it and be fine, but between this whole credibility issue and the general awkwardness of explicitly coming out, I don't plan on leaving the closet any time soon.
13 June 2010
Quiet, Please
I don't talk. I might speak occasionally, but never do I actually talk to anyone, at any time. If I have something important that requires "talking," I write it down and e-mail, mail, or even just hand it to whomever needs to know.
I have no problem with my system of silence. It is in my nature to keep superfluous thoughts to myself. (Also why I post so rarely here.) Small talk is boring and unnecessary, and interesting subjects are too hard to explain to people. I'm not going to teach someone astrophysics in the small hope that they'd then want to discuss the shape of space.
My Dear Mother does not seem to understand why I am not constantly engaging her in conversation. Just this afternoon she was berating me about it--saying how I will fail life because I can't come up with a continuous stream of irrelevant remarks and questions. I told her plainly, I just don't like to talk much; it's nothing personal. And she said, I know. She doesn't know.
Everything I do, she takes as an attack against her. If I wait too long to do my laundry I'm "testing her patience." If I stay in my room I'm "avoiding her." If I go outside I'm still "avoiding her." If I'm near her and not talking, there must be something wrong with me, because why else would I not give her a live feed to my thoughts?
She thinks it's weird that we live together and don't have daily chats. Look, ma, I'm not being quiet to piss you off; this is just how I am. If you want to tell me something, go right ahead, but you can't expect me to pull topics out of thin air and then find an appropriate segue. She's not even extraverted!
All right then, I will fail life. Sadly, I don't care. I'm not going to force awkward, pointless conversations to please anyone, let alone my Dear Mother, whom I would've hoped would have learned to be comfortable with my silence by now. I guess she'll get it eventually. I'll be gone in another couple years either way.
This situation is just one more case of the stigma loners carry. You're not talking--you're either stupid or depressed or a future mass murderer. How many jobs have been lost because the employee wasn't "friendly" (ie talkative) enough? How many relationships have broken up because one partner was "antisocial"?
People think loners need to just pick up some social skills and start talking--problem fixed! The real question is, why is being a loner even considered a problem? Maybe people hear our silence, our refusal to participate in mundane niceties, and realize just how pointless their conversations are. No one likes to be judged, so they lash out, criticizing the loner's innate personality. Surprisingly, this tactic doesn't make the loner talk.
I am a loner. I am quiet and private. These traits leave me disinclined to speak. I don't have a problem with it; I wish others could get over it too.
I have no problem with my system of silence. It is in my nature to keep superfluous thoughts to myself. (Also why I post so rarely here.) Small talk is boring and unnecessary, and interesting subjects are too hard to explain to people. I'm not going to teach someone astrophysics in the small hope that they'd then want to discuss the shape of space.
My Dear Mother does not seem to understand why I am not constantly engaging her in conversation. Just this afternoon she was berating me about it--saying how I will fail life because I can't come up with a continuous stream of irrelevant remarks and questions. I told her plainly, I just don't like to talk much; it's nothing personal. And she said, I know. She doesn't know.
Everything I do, she takes as an attack against her. If I wait too long to do my laundry I'm "testing her patience." If I stay in my room I'm "avoiding her." If I go outside I'm still "avoiding her." If I'm near her and not talking, there must be something wrong with me, because why else would I not give her a live feed to my thoughts?
She thinks it's weird that we live together and don't have daily chats. Look, ma, I'm not being quiet to piss you off; this is just how I am. If you want to tell me something, go right ahead, but you can't expect me to pull topics out of thin air and then find an appropriate segue. She's not even extraverted!
All right then, I will fail life. Sadly, I don't care. I'm not going to force awkward, pointless conversations to please anyone, let alone my Dear Mother, whom I would've hoped would have learned to be comfortable with my silence by now. I guess she'll get it eventually. I'll be gone in another couple years either way.
This situation is just one more case of the stigma loners carry. You're not talking--you're either stupid or depressed or a future mass murderer. How many jobs have been lost because the employee wasn't "friendly" (ie talkative) enough? How many relationships have broken up because one partner was "antisocial"?
People think loners need to just pick up some social skills and start talking--problem fixed! The real question is, why is being a loner even considered a problem? Maybe people hear our silence, our refusal to participate in mundane niceties, and realize just how pointless their conversations are. No one likes to be judged, so they lash out, criticizing the loner's innate personality. Surprisingly, this tactic doesn't make the loner talk.
I am a loner. I am quiet and private. These traits leave me disinclined to speak. I don't have a problem with it; I wish others could get over it too.
25 December 2009
It's the Holiday Season
And thankfully, it's almost over. Just a few more hours now of Actual Christmastime. Then the post-holiday cool down. Not too much longer though....
I'm quite ambivalent about Christmas, actually. On the one hand, I shouldn't even being celebrating it. But, you know, I'm still tied to family and must go along with them. Plus, Christmas has become more of a "culture" holiday than a religious one. As far as actually enjoying it, it depends who shows up. My brothers, their spouses, and their dogs? Yes! Excellent! My sister, her husband, and their young children? Not so much.
Let's review:
On Christmas eve the whole extended family got together. Lots of people in one small house, three-quarters of whom dislike? No thanks. Yet there I sat, hours upon hours. I suppose if I enjoyed their chit chat, I might have not been bored out of my mind. As it was, the only break in the monotony was the opening of presents. Not to sound ungrateful, but it was really a waste on all sides. I told people that if they wanted to give me something, let it be money because that's all I need. I don't need (or want, for that matter) socks. Or lotion. Or pajama bottoms that are three inches too long, etc. However, I desperately need a college education, which You could help pay for. But why bother contributing to something that matters, amirite?
Speaking of ridiculously high university costs, my brother-in-law (whom you may remember from a previous post of mine about childfree-ness) tried to convince me to apply for Stanford because if I do well enough, it would be free. All right, let's have a look. What do I want in a college...? Small student body; undergraduates only; neuroscience Bachelors degree; laid-back, yet studious, atmosphere. Okay. The college I'm interested in: check, check, check, and check. Stanford: oh-for-four.
The tricky thing is try to explain just what it is about my preferred institution that makes it so appealing to me. There is no one trait about it, or even a list of traits, that made me decided This Is the One. It just seems to fit me nicely, and the whole attitude there feels right. (Hopefully this is Ne speaking and not, say, Fi.) This feeling is not easy to explain, especially on-the-spot, aloud, and to critical ears. Not being able to properly articulate my connection to this university left me with no argument when BIL took it upon himself to find me a college that met my concrete "checks" and provided generous aid.
Even if I really do need to find a cheaper college, I can't just dump my best find on a whim! I'm sure there are other colleges out there that would have this same feeling for me, but it's kind of like falling in love. For monogamists, you can date all you want, and it's all fun and good. But then you fall in love with someone. You start taking things seriously, and you make the relationship exclusive. Maybe there's more people out there that you could also love, but you don't just keep looking even when you've found a good match!
The analogy isn't perfect, obviously. I do still need back-up colleges to which to apply. The truth of the matter, though, is that I am pretty much set on this one, and I'll work out the cost later. They have financial aid. It's not like BIL's finds are the only places that help you out.
Besides analyzing colleges, I spent Christmas day trying to be sociable and nice. I don't think it worked out very well. I just can't handle people for hours at a time. Whenever I tried to escape into my bedroom the smaller of the two children would follow soon after and start banging on my door. Of course, the parents plainly ignored this. Time "with family" was time spent listening to the sproglings fight, whine, cry, and generally be unpleasant and loud. Even when they're not actually screaming, they are loud. Their voices are loud. Their footsteps are loud. Their toys are loud. Their very presence is loud. I'd get specific about their behavior, but I really don't think I'm ready to relive all those moments... :shudder:. Let's just say, I'm glad they left early.
Of course the holidays weren't all bad. I indulged in sweets and got Half Blood Prince on DVD. The college debate rekindled my love for my preferred institution. I guess even having sprog here just served to remind me why I will never make children a part of my life. Nevertheless, I'm glad it's over now. Once a year might be too often.
I'm quite ambivalent about Christmas, actually. On the one hand, I shouldn't even being celebrating it. But, you know, I'm still tied to family and must go along with them. Plus, Christmas has become more of a "culture" holiday than a religious one. As far as actually enjoying it, it depends who shows up. My brothers, their spouses, and their dogs? Yes! Excellent! My sister, her husband, and their young children? Not so much.
Let's review:
On Christmas eve the whole extended family got together. Lots of people in one small house, three-quarters of whom dislike? No thanks. Yet there I sat, hours upon hours. I suppose if I enjoyed their chit chat, I might have not been bored out of my mind. As it was, the only break in the monotony was the opening of presents. Not to sound ungrateful, but it was really a waste on all sides. I told people that if they wanted to give me something, let it be money because that's all I need. I don't need (or want, for that matter) socks. Or lotion. Or pajama bottoms that are three inches too long, etc. However, I desperately need a college education, which You could help pay for. But why bother contributing to something that matters, amirite?
Speaking of ridiculously high university costs, my brother-in-law (whom you may remember from a previous post of mine about childfree-ness) tried to convince me to apply for Stanford because if I do well enough, it would be free. All right, let's have a look. What do I want in a college...? Small student body; undergraduates only; neuroscience Bachelors degree; laid-back, yet studious, atmosphere. Okay. The college I'm interested in: check, check, check, and check. Stanford: oh-for-four.
The tricky thing is try to explain just what it is about my preferred institution that makes it so appealing to me. There is no one trait about it, or even a list of traits, that made me decided This Is the One. It just seems to fit me nicely, and the whole attitude there feels right. (Hopefully this is Ne speaking and not, say, Fi.) This feeling is not easy to explain, especially on-the-spot, aloud, and to critical ears. Not being able to properly articulate my connection to this university left me with no argument when BIL took it upon himself to find me a college that met my concrete "checks" and provided generous aid.
Even if I really do need to find a cheaper college, I can't just dump my best find on a whim! I'm sure there are other colleges out there that would have this same feeling for me, but it's kind of like falling in love. For monogamists, you can date all you want, and it's all fun and good. But then you fall in love with someone. You start taking things seriously, and you make the relationship exclusive. Maybe there's more people out there that you could also love, but you don't just keep looking even when you've found a good match!
The analogy isn't perfect, obviously. I do still need back-up colleges to which to apply. The truth of the matter, though, is that I am pretty much set on this one, and I'll work out the cost later. They have financial aid. It's not like BIL's finds are the only places that help you out.
Besides analyzing colleges, I spent Christmas day trying to be sociable and nice. I don't think it worked out very well. I just can't handle people for hours at a time. Whenever I tried to escape into my bedroom the smaller of the two children would follow soon after and start banging on my door. Of course, the parents plainly ignored this. Time "with family" was time spent listening to the sproglings fight, whine, cry, and generally be unpleasant and loud. Even when they're not actually screaming, they are loud. Their voices are loud. Their footsteps are loud. Their toys are loud. Their very presence is loud. I'd get specific about their behavior, but I really don't think I'm ready to relive all those moments... :shudder:. Let's just say, I'm glad they left early.
Of course the holidays weren't all bad. I indulged in sweets and got Half Blood Prince on DVD. The college debate rekindled my love for my preferred institution. I guess even having sprog here just served to remind me why I will never make children a part of my life. Nevertheless, I'm glad it's over now. Once a year might be too often.
26 September 2009
Religion vs Spirituality
I tend to go through cycles of reconsidering my beliefs. One day it'll be my sexuality, then gender, personality type, future goals, etc. Today I began revisiting religions.
I know what I believe, for the most part. I do not believe there is a conscious being that is God, but I admit I could be wrong. I think all living things--people, animals, nature--are all connected in an intrinsic way. I think the same sort of spiritual "energy" is in everything. I think an overarching Truth exists, but that no being can ever actually know it. (And if they did know it, they wouldn't realize it.) I don't think dead people (or animals, etc.) retain any consciousness; rather, I believe their energy melds back into the rest of the universe.
My beliefs are all based on faith; I have no proof. I cannot be expected to have proof. Spirituality is the realm of Fi, I go with what makes sense to me. Perhaps my beliefs sound crazy to someone else, but I might find their views just as strange. Spirituality is personal and subjective. No one's beliefs are right or wrong, as long as they fit the individual person.
That said, you can imagine my opinion of religion. Organized religion is the corruption of spirituality. It takes what should be an intensely personal search and turns it into This Is What We Believe. Religions don't offer people the chance to come to their own conclusions, they tell them what's "right." Some are better than others about this, but essentially all do it.
It pains me to see children being indoctrinated into religions. How will they ever develop spiritually if you hand them "answers" their whole life. "What is a god, anyway?" "Well here, Sally, just read this book, it'll tell you!" And so on.
Nevertheless, I have been searching around for a religion that fits me. I strongly identify with Pantheism, except most of it seems quite... sterile. They have ripped all the spirituality from it in an effort to be perfectly Atheist, but in doing so, they have lost appeal of all-is-god. Unitarian Universalism goes too far the other way. It is infused with paranormal and a jumble of other things. It does not seem to have a set of beliefs, but rather share a quest. This is admirable, but ultimately pointless (for me).
I have looked into a couple Eastern nature-centered religions also. They seem to be exclusive. You can't just believe this stuff, you have to go to a spiritual leader with x qualifications and read this, or else your not a Real Taoist, or whichever it may be. I guess they don't want people confused about what the religion's actually about. Still, you think they could just post it online... I guess that's too modern for religion. Hmph.
Point being that I am once again left with only descriptions: atheist, agnostic, pantheist, new age, UU. But still no unifying, all-encompassing label. Perhaps that is a good thing; I remain free to mold my beliefs as I see fit. If I one day decide that there actually is an afterlife, I can accept that change without worrying about not being a _______ anymore.
As much as I hate religion, I love spirituality. I think it is important for everyone to think about their beliefs (whatever they may be) and adjust them throughout their lives. Whether through prayer, meditation, rituals, or just reflection; everyone needs to engage their spirituality.
Probably my most spiritual experience took place just over a month ago. I was hiking through a nature preserve. The air was crisp, but not cold. I was walking over these rolling hills, everything covered in prarie grass: gold and purple and green. I felt part of it all, the plants, the sky, the sun. It was nature--and it was the most magical thing I'd ever seen.
I know my beliefs could change. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't. For now though, I know my views fit me. I hope everyone can break free of the dogmatic religions and find their own, personal beliefs.
I know what I believe, for the most part. I do not believe there is a conscious being that is God, but I admit I could be wrong. I think all living things--people, animals, nature--are all connected in an intrinsic way. I think the same sort of spiritual "energy" is in everything. I think an overarching Truth exists, but that no being can ever actually know it. (And if they did know it, they wouldn't realize it.) I don't think dead people (or animals, etc.) retain any consciousness; rather, I believe their energy melds back into the rest of the universe.
My beliefs are all based on faith; I have no proof. I cannot be expected to have proof. Spirituality is the realm of Fi, I go with what makes sense to me. Perhaps my beliefs sound crazy to someone else, but I might find their views just as strange. Spirituality is personal and subjective. No one's beliefs are right or wrong, as long as they fit the individual person.
That said, you can imagine my opinion of religion. Organized religion is the corruption of spirituality. It takes what should be an intensely personal search and turns it into This Is What We Believe. Religions don't offer people the chance to come to their own conclusions, they tell them what's "right." Some are better than others about this, but essentially all do it.
It pains me to see children being indoctrinated into religions. How will they ever develop spiritually if you hand them "answers" their whole life. "What is a god, anyway?" "Well here, Sally, just read this book, it'll tell you!" And so on.
Nevertheless, I have been searching around for a religion that fits me. I strongly identify with Pantheism, except most of it seems quite... sterile. They have ripped all the spirituality from it in an effort to be perfectly Atheist, but in doing so, they have lost appeal of all-is-god. Unitarian Universalism goes too far the other way. It is infused with paranormal and a jumble of other things. It does not seem to have a set of beliefs, but rather share a quest. This is admirable, but ultimately pointless (for me).
I have looked into a couple Eastern nature-centered religions also. They seem to be exclusive. You can't just believe this stuff, you have to go to a spiritual leader with x qualifications and read this, or else your not a Real Taoist, or whichever it may be. I guess they don't want people confused about what the religion's actually about. Still, you think they could just post it online... I guess that's too modern for religion. Hmph.
Point being that I am once again left with only descriptions: atheist, agnostic, pantheist, new age, UU. But still no unifying, all-encompassing label. Perhaps that is a good thing; I remain free to mold my beliefs as I see fit. If I one day decide that there actually is an afterlife, I can accept that change without worrying about not being a _______ anymore.
As much as I hate religion, I love spirituality. I think it is important for everyone to think about their beliefs (whatever they may be) and adjust them throughout their lives. Whether through prayer, meditation, rituals, or just reflection; everyone needs to engage their spirituality.
Probably my most spiritual experience took place just over a month ago. I was hiking through a nature preserve. The air was crisp, but not cold. I was walking over these rolling hills, everything covered in prarie grass: gold and purple and green. I felt part of it all, the plants, the sky, the sun. It was nature--and it was the most magical thing I'd ever seen.
I know my beliefs could change. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't. For now though, I know my views fit me. I hope everyone can break free of the dogmatic religions and find their own, personal beliefs.
03 September 2009
Loners at Lunch
Just a few moments ago I was looking over my school schedule, for no reason beyond boredom. I was reminded that next semester, my lunch changes to a different time slot. I was "lucky" enough to find people to sit with in both of my lunches this semester (block scheduling leaves us with two), but what if I didn't know anyone with X lunch in second semester?
The answer is painfully simple: sit alone! I love being alone. I generally dislike people and find most of their chatter an annoying interruption to my thoughts. Hence, sitting by myself should have been an obvious and easy choice.
But sitting alone is neither obvious nor, indeed, easy. Society has so brainwashed us into a pro-social mindset, that even extreme introverts like myself balk at being without companions. I enjoy solitude in every other situation, yet sitting alone at lunch makes me anxious, paranoid. "Are they laughing at me? Did that girl just point to me? Did that guy just whisper something about me?" etc.
One set of my lunch mates last school year were horrible. We were basically ex-friends, just grew apart. I hated them and their mindless gossip, and they probably didn't love me either. Yet I still sat with them. Why didn't I just go off by myself? I could've sat at a different table and read or done homework when I finished eating. I could've stayed there for the whole lunch period if I wanted (not that we get very long). But instead I sat with Them, every.single.day. Why? Because you couldn't sit alone! You just couldn't!
There is no logical reason not to sit by yourself, unless of course you are worried about what the herd thinks of you. I, like most (if not all) loners, don't care. If anything, I'd rather they think I was some weird antisocial nerd than a gossiping teenager like themselves. However, Society's message had penetrated my mind so deeply that I couldn't escape it. I didn't even realize it wasn't MY thought, at first.
I am sick of the stigmas attached to sitting alone: I must not have friends, I must be unhappy, No one must like me, etc. If people feel scorn or pity for someone sitting alone, it only proves how heavily they rely on Society's standards. I challenge everyone to sit by themselves, if they want. I challenge the rest to accept this.
If I find someone in my lunch second semester, someone that I genuinely like, then I'll sit with them. But I will NOT be pressured into sitting with someone whose company I don't enjoy. I will sit alone, and I will be happy and proud to do so. Perhaps a fellow loner will see me, happily eating and reading with no companions, and realize that ze too can eat by hirself. And maybe ze will start sitting alone and inspire another loner. And maybe it will spread and spread until finally, one day, sitting by yourself will be the obvious and easy choice it should be.
The answer is painfully simple: sit alone! I love being alone. I generally dislike people and find most of their chatter an annoying interruption to my thoughts. Hence, sitting by myself should have been an obvious and easy choice.
But sitting alone is neither obvious nor, indeed, easy. Society has so brainwashed us into a pro-social mindset, that even extreme introverts like myself balk at being without companions. I enjoy solitude in every other situation, yet sitting alone at lunch makes me anxious, paranoid. "Are they laughing at me? Did that girl just point to me? Did that guy just whisper something about me?" etc.
One set of my lunch mates last school year were horrible. We were basically ex-friends, just grew apart. I hated them and their mindless gossip, and they probably didn't love me either. Yet I still sat with them. Why didn't I just go off by myself? I could've sat at a different table and read or done homework when I finished eating. I could've stayed there for the whole lunch period if I wanted (not that we get very long). But instead I sat with Them, every.single.day. Why? Because you couldn't sit alone! You just couldn't!
There is no logical reason not to sit by yourself, unless of course you are worried about what the herd thinks of you. I, like most (if not all) loners, don't care. If anything, I'd rather they think I was some weird antisocial nerd than a gossiping teenager like themselves. However, Society's message had penetrated my mind so deeply that I couldn't escape it. I didn't even realize it wasn't MY thought, at first.
I am sick of the stigmas attached to sitting alone: I must not have friends, I must be unhappy, No one must like me, etc. If people feel scorn or pity for someone sitting alone, it only proves how heavily they rely on Society's standards. I challenge everyone to sit by themselves, if they want. I challenge the rest to accept this.
If I find someone in my lunch second semester, someone that I genuinely like, then I'll sit with them. But I will NOT be pressured into sitting with someone whose company I don't enjoy. I will sit alone, and I will be happy and proud to do so. Perhaps a fellow loner will see me, happily eating and reading with no companions, and realize that ze too can eat by hirself. And maybe ze will start sitting alone and inspire another loner. And maybe it will spread and spread until finally, one day, sitting by yourself will be the obvious and easy choice it should be.
10 August 2009
PE in HS
With obesity on the rise, one would think it common sense to be in support of physical education throughout high school. However, there is a lot more to this issue than first meets the eye. Looking at the big picture, one can see that PE does not belong in high schools.
Schools cannot force children to be fit. They can impress upon them the importance of exercise and make the available sports known. However, PE is not teaching anyone to be fit. Everyone knows, before high school, how to play volleyball and softball and whatever else. (In fact, my PE teacher did not even explain the rules to us, just assumed we knew them from middle school.) If someone was interested in a sport, they would have joined it. By high school, it's rather too late to pick up a competitive team sport. As such, PE is not bringing anything new to the table.
Now, one could argue that PE itself is making students exercise, but this is doubtful--if not downright false. Schools can make them play sports and "exercise," but they cannot make students put in effort. If they aren't putting in their full effort, what good is it doing? Not much at all.
Focusing on "traditional" exercise options like team sports and running only scares people away. But one can't very well go hiking in PE. Or fence. Or kayak. In this way, PE is incredibly limited and drives students away from anything that might be deemed "exercise."
The main reason PE doesn't belong in high schools, though, is that it eats up valuable space in the student's schedule. Even without sacrificing a period for PE, I am not able to fit in all the classes I find interesting. With all the other requirements, students are already severely limited in their choice of electives. PE is, to put it bluntly, a complete waste of time, and I am incredulous that schools would even consider to further restrict their students' schedules with it.
Maybe without those extra three years of "physical education" someone could take psychology. Or astronomy. Creative writing. Personal finance. Another language. But instead of actually learning (which is what schools used to be for), the student would be forced to spend 90 minutes sitting in the gym. Ze could use that time for homework, studying, or even researching a topic outside of hir assignments. No, ze has to play basketball.
Schools are for learning. High school in particular is a very important time for one's education, what with college (or careers) just a few years away. Students need to be putting their time and energies into classes relevant to their futures. People can easily find ways to exercise on their own, whether it be playing sports through a club or doing aerobics by themselves. Most people, though, will have a very hard time learning on their own. Therefore, high schools need to remember their purpose: primers for college and the work force, not fitness trainers.
Obesity is a serious problem here, I don't deny that. PE is not going fix obesity though. In the meantime, ignorance is also a serious problem, and extra academics could help. Lack of creative thought is a serious problem, and extra fine arts could help. So instead of schools putting all their time and money into an area where it won't do any good, why don't they focus on the places that could actually benefit from it?
Schools cannot force children to be fit. They can impress upon them the importance of exercise and make the available sports known. However, PE is not teaching anyone to be fit. Everyone knows, before high school, how to play volleyball and softball and whatever else. (In fact, my PE teacher did not even explain the rules to us, just assumed we knew them from middle school.) If someone was interested in a sport, they would have joined it. By high school, it's rather too late to pick up a competitive team sport. As such, PE is not bringing anything new to the table.
Now, one could argue that PE itself is making students exercise, but this is doubtful--if not downright false. Schools can make them play sports and "exercise," but they cannot make students put in effort. If they aren't putting in their full effort, what good is it doing? Not much at all.
Focusing on "traditional" exercise options like team sports and running only scares people away. But one can't very well go hiking in PE. Or fence. Or kayak. In this way, PE is incredibly limited and drives students away from anything that might be deemed "exercise."
The main reason PE doesn't belong in high schools, though, is that it eats up valuable space in the student's schedule. Even without sacrificing a period for PE, I am not able to fit in all the classes I find interesting. With all the other requirements, students are already severely limited in their choice of electives. PE is, to put it bluntly, a complete waste of time, and I am incredulous that schools would even consider to further restrict their students' schedules with it.
Maybe without those extra three years of "physical education" someone could take psychology. Or astronomy. Creative writing. Personal finance. Another language. But instead of actually learning (which is what schools used to be for), the student would be forced to spend 90 minutes sitting in the gym. Ze could use that time for homework, studying, or even researching a topic outside of hir assignments. No, ze has to play basketball.
Schools are for learning. High school in particular is a very important time for one's education, what with college (or careers) just a few years away. Students need to be putting their time and energies into classes relevant to their futures. People can easily find ways to exercise on their own, whether it be playing sports through a club or doing aerobics by themselves. Most people, though, will have a very hard time learning on their own. Therefore, high schools need to remember their purpose: primers for college and the work force, not fitness trainers.
Obesity is a serious problem here, I don't deny that. PE is not going fix obesity though. In the meantime, ignorance is also a serious problem, and extra academics could help. Lack of creative thought is a serious problem, and extra fine arts could help. So instead of schools putting all their time and money into an area where it won't do any good, why don't they focus on the places that could actually benefit from it?
01 August 2009
Alone, But Not Lonely
Today I was forced to attend the funeral of someone I barely knew. I "had" to go because it was for my great aunt and godmother, never mind that I had never bonded with her. I made it through the whole speech part and most of lunch. But as my mother lagged behind, saying goodbye to everyone, I started to get antsy. Everyone was standing and moving about, people were squeezing past me and bumping into me left and right. Finally my mother took pity on me and gave me the keys, so that I could wait in the car for her.
This is one of many hundreds of examples of the daily suffering of extreme introverts: loners. An introvert is a person who prefers solitude; a loner is an introvert who actively seeks solitude out. Being a loner does not make one "disordered." Introversion, even in its extremes, is a perfectly healthy preference. However, the extraverted society that we live in would not want anyone believing that!
We are indoctrinated, from early childhood until death, that socializing is Good and solitude is Bad. "Oh, look at that poor boy, eating all by himself with no one to talk to!" the extravert says. But what the extravert doesn't know--indeed, what ze can't know--is that the boy is currently pondering the nature of reality and has no wish to replace this line of thought with glib comments about the weather.
Not only is solitude not harmful, it is much more healthy than socialization. In solitude, one can introspect and discover oneself. This invariably leads to high self-esteem and confidence. One becomes impervious to peer pressure, trends, and the like. There is a whole inner world to explore, and most extraverts don't even know it exists! I rather pity them. What an empty life they must live, not truly knowing themselves....
Now that we all agree introversion is not a disease or disorder, we must discuss loners specifically. Most introverts require some amount of socialization, even if relatively infrequent. But what about the people who don't require any? What about the people who are healthy and happy without any? What about loners?
To start, let us go through three basic types of relationships: friends, partners, and family.
FRIENDS:
It is possible for a loner to have friends, however it wouldn't be a typical relationship. Perhaps they only see each other a few times a year, or only email. Because a loner is not willing to put much of their time towards a friendship, ze is not likely to maintain more than one or two. A loner probably wouldn't bother with acquaintances because those relationships do not offer the depth of conversation that a loner requires to stay interested. So: a loner CAN have friends, but not in the conventional sense.
PARTNERS:
A loner would not typically have any sort of life partner. Loners live their own lives and wouldn't want another person tagging along all the time, even if they loved that person. Loners don't have to be aromantic or asexual or anything, but they might act as if they were. If a loner did fall for someone and started a relationship, it wouldn't be the generic "together-forever" partners for life. For example, they probably wouldn't live together. Kind of similar to the friendship styles. Of course, unless they are both loners, this sort of relationship is hard to maintain. Hence, loners are extremely unlikely to have partners.
FAMILY:
A loner desires no bonds to other people, yet ze is forced into them from before birth--bonds to hir family. This is a tricky situation that doesn't always end in peaceful understanding, as you can imagine. The loner may start off trying to keep up with family, but it inevitably becomes too much. It just takes too much time and effort to maintain these bonds, and they eventually decay. A loner shouldn't feel at all sad about this though; ze does not want to be bonded to others, regardless of genetic similarity. (If a loner considers certain family members "friends" too, they might better fall under that category--infrequent communication, etc.)
Loners have oddly contrasting places in the world of fiction. They are the school shooters, dangerous, cold. Yet they are also the quirky, bright, if "overly private," catches in romantic comedies. The first is obviously not true. The second starts off good, but ends in horror, with the "loner" suddenly coming out of hir shell and sharing hir life with the main character. So if fiction doesn't have good examples, what are loners really like?
Loners, living outside the trends of the mainstream, often hold strange beliefs. Also, spending most of their time away from people, loners may develop strange mannerisms. This can come across as being quirky, different, weird, etc. Loners are inherently hard to get to know, making them mysterious to some. Because loners keep to themselves, extraverts may come to the conclusion they're shy or (my favorite) "quiet." When loners reject attempts at small talk, they often come across as cold, condescending, and aloof.
These are all just society's views on loners. Each and every loner is different. Some are guided by pure logic, others by personal values. Some like working with details, others notice overarching patterns. Some are very orderly, others are spontaneous. All they have in common is their solitude, and the understanding of themselves that that solitude gives them.
Here is when the extravert speaks up: "But socializing is necessary for personal growth!" Ha! Excuse me for not seeing how senseless talking makes me a complete person. Maybe that's just me. Even if it does give you some sort of personal growth, is it in the direction I want? I would rather learn, explore, and discover on my own, than get "social skills" through shallow conversations with people I barely know.
Before you come along claiming that all humans are social beings so I must be wrong! consider that I have introspected for many years before coming to my present stance. I have drawn on my own experiences and feelings, as well as those of fellow loners. I know myself, and I know what I want and need. I am not unhappy or unhealthy. I am a loner.
This is one of many hundreds of examples of the daily suffering of extreme introverts: loners. An introvert is a person who prefers solitude; a loner is an introvert who actively seeks solitude out. Being a loner does not make one "disordered." Introversion, even in its extremes, is a perfectly healthy preference. However, the extraverted society that we live in would not want anyone believing that!
We are indoctrinated, from early childhood until death, that socializing is Good and solitude is Bad. "Oh, look at that poor boy, eating all by himself with no one to talk to!" the extravert says. But what the extravert doesn't know--indeed, what ze can't know--is that the boy is currently pondering the nature of reality and has no wish to replace this line of thought with glib comments about the weather.
Not only is solitude not harmful, it is much more healthy than socialization. In solitude, one can introspect and discover oneself. This invariably leads to high self-esteem and confidence. One becomes impervious to peer pressure, trends, and the like. There is a whole inner world to explore, and most extraverts don't even know it exists! I rather pity them. What an empty life they must live, not truly knowing themselves....
Now that we all agree introversion is not a disease or disorder, we must discuss loners specifically. Most introverts require some amount of socialization, even if relatively infrequent. But what about the people who don't require any? What about the people who are healthy and happy without any? What about loners?
To start, let us go through three basic types of relationships: friends, partners, and family.
FRIENDS:
It is possible for a loner to have friends, however it wouldn't be a typical relationship. Perhaps they only see each other a few times a year, or only email. Because a loner is not willing to put much of their time towards a friendship, ze is not likely to maintain more than one or two. A loner probably wouldn't bother with acquaintances because those relationships do not offer the depth of conversation that a loner requires to stay interested. So: a loner CAN have friends, but not in the conventional sense.
PARTNERS:
A loner would not typically have any sort of life partner. Loners live their own lives and wouldn't want another person tagging along all the time, even if they loved that person. Loners don't have to be aromantic or asexual or anything, but they might act as if they were. If a loner did fall for someone and started a relationship, it wouldn't be the generic "together-forever" partners for life. For example, they probably wouldn't live together. Kind of similar to the friendship styles. Of course, unless they are both loners, this sort of relationship is hard to maintain. Hence, loners are extremely unlikely to have partners.
FAMILY:
A loner desires no bonds to other people, yet ze is forced into them from before birth--bonds to hir family. This is a tricky situation that doesn't always end in peaceful understanding, as you can imagine. The loner may start off trying to keep up with family, but it inevitably becomes too much. It just takes too much time and effort to maintain these bonds, and they eventually decay. A loner shouldn't feel at all sad about this though; ze does not want to be bonded to others, regardless of genetic similarity. (If a loner considers certain family members "friends" too, they might better fall under that category--infrequent communication, etc.)
Loners have oddly contrasting places in the world of fiction. They are the school shooters, dangerous, cold. Yet they are also the quirky, bright, if "overly private," catches in romantic comedies. The first is obviously not true. The second starts off good, but ends in horror, with the "loner" suddenly coming out of hir shell and sharing hir life with the main character. So if fiction doesn't have good examples, what are loners really like?
Loners, living outside the trends of the mainstream, often hold strange beliefs. Also, spending most of their time away from people, loners may develop strange mannerisms. This can come across as being quirky, different, weird, etc. Loners are inherently hard to get to know, making them mysterious to some. Because loners keep to themselves, extraverts may come to the conclusion they're shy or (my favorite) "quiet." When loners reject attempts at small talk, they often come across as cold, condescending, and aloof.
These are all just society's views on loners. Each and every loner is different. Some are guided by pure logic, others by personal values. Some like working with details, others notice overarching patterns. Some are very orderly, others are spontaneous. All they have in common is their solitude, and the understanding of themselves that that solitude gives them.
Here is when the extravert speaks up: "But socializing is necessary for personal growth!" Ha! Excuse me for not seeing how senseless talking makes me a complete person. Maybe that's just me. Even if it does give you some sort of personal growth, is it in the direction I want? I would rather learn, explore, and discover on my own, than get "social skills" through shallow conversations with people I barely know.
Before you come along claiming that all humans are social beings so I must be wrong! consider that I have introspected for many years before coming to my present stance. I have drawn on my own experiences and feelings, as well as those of fellow loners. I know myself, and I know what I want and need. I am not unhappy or unhealthy. I am a loner.
28 June 2009
Homesick...? How about "Sick of Home"
You're shocked that I've made two posts this month, aren't you?
---
My first choice college seems like a wonderful place. Rigorous academics, interested profs, small-yet-diverse student body...all surrounded by a quaint town with beautiful weather.... It also happens to be completely across the country.
This doesn't particularly bother me, but my mother is horrified by the very idea of it. Despite the fact that I could call and write to her whenever and see her twice a year, she seems to think I'll be homesick. In fact, she is now actively pressuring me to pick a college near home, but there is only one college in a 1000-mile radius that I'd even consider attending. And it is nowhere near as awesome as my first choice.
I just don't understand her point. I mean, I'm not going to be around here the whole rest of my life. What's the difference if I get out before college or after? I get that it's a mom thing, wanting to keep her baby as close to her as possible for as long as possible, but really it's just annoying.
I'm not particularly close to my family (or anyone else round here), so I truly don't think I will even be homesick. I guess I might miss some aspects of home, but nothing strong enough to turn me away from that beautiful establishment of post-secondary education. It's a little frustrating that my own mother can't even see how detached I am from everything here.
I think when I told her how I wanted to travel, she didn't really get it. She thinks I'm going to settle down in the city, get married, have 2 kids, and make occasional trips to Mexico. No thanks. When I say I want to travel, I mean I really want to explore the world. Backpacking through Europe will be the first adventure, and who knows what after that. Maybe I'll live in the city here, maybe some village in Switzerland. I just don't know yet. Maybe I'll find a life partner, but more likely I'll go it alone. And I just won't be having kids--no maybe's for that one.
The point of all that is I am going to be away from home. Whether I miss this place or not, I'm not going to stay here. So why keep putting it off? I need to see the world, and college will be the first step towards it.
---
My first choice college seems like a wonderful place. Rigorous academics, interested profs, small-yet-diverse student body...all surrounded by a quaint town with beautiful weather.... It also happens to be completely across the country.
This doesn't particularly bother me, but my mother is horrified by the very idea of it. Despite the fact that I could call and write to her whenever and see her twice a year, she seems to think I'll be homesick. In fact, she is now actively pressuring me to pick a college near home, but there is only one college in a 1000-mile radius that I'd even consider attending. And it is nowhere near as awesome as my first choice.
I just don't understand her point. I mean, I'm not going to be around here the whole rest of my life. What's the difference if I get out before college or after? I get that it's a mom thing, wanting to keep her baby as close to her as possible for as long as possible, but really it's just annoying.
I'm not particularly close to my family (or anyone else round here), so I truly don't think I will even be homesick. I guess I might miss some aspects of home, but nothing strong enough to turn me away from that beautiful establishment of post-secondary education. It's a little frustrating that my own mother can't even see how detached I am from everything here.
I think when I told her how I wanted to travel, she didn't really get it. She thinks I'm going to settle down in the city, get married, have 2 kids, and make occasional trips to Mexico. No thanks. When I say I want to travel, I mean I really want to explore the world. Backpacking through Europe will be the first adventure, and who knows what after that. Maybe I'll live in the city here, maybe some village in Switzerland. I just don't know yet. Maybe I'll find a life partner, but more likely I'll go it alone. And I just won't be having kids--no maybe's for that one.
The point of all that is I am going to be away from home. Whether I miss this place or not, I'm not going to stay here. So why keep putting it off? I need to see the world, and college will be the first step towards it.
24 June 2009
The Inclusive Community
After browsing through various forums and blogs dedicated to asexuality, I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the community.
I feel that it is far too broad. Inclusiveness is great, but too much and the whole group loses its meaning. For example, demisexuals. Just because you're not AS sexual as you think other people are, doesn't make you part of the ace community. It boggles my mind that some people claim to be asexual and then say how they actually do desire and enjoy partnered sex. Well, which is it?
The real issue here is the media. The media's got everyone thinking how they need to always want sex! You don't want sex right this second? Sure you do, you're just repressing it! This attitude leaves the "average sexual" (as opposed to hyper-sexual) with three options: (1)pretend ze does in fact want sex all the time, (2)actively speak out about hir difference, or (3)realize that ze is actually normal.
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are choosing Option 3. And the more people choose Option 1, the more other people feel alienated and choose Option 2. Now, I'm not saying there is no "demisexual" category between asexuality and average sexuals. I just think it's overused, misused.
Let's look at two cases:
Case A: "Joanna"
Joanna had never before wanted sex or thought of someone as sexy, and she began identifying as asexual. Several years later, she began dating someone. As she got to know this person, she became increasingly attracted to hir. They had sex, and Joanna enjoyed it. Eventually, they broke up, and Joanna realized that she only experiences sexual attraction to people she is already "emotionally" attracted to.
Case B: "Sarah"
Sarah always hears her friends talking about how hot people are. Sarah is only attracted to a specific type of person. She started identifying as a demisexual because she doesn't seem to experience sexual attraction as much as her friends. She had gone out with several people and had enjoyed the sexual relationships with them; some of them she didn't even feel emotionally connected with. She realized she desires sex, but continues to identify as demi because she feels her desires are less than others'.
Hopefully you can see where this is going, but just in case: Joanna is demisexual because on occasion she experiences sexual attraction to people she is already emotionally attracted to. Sarah is a normal sexual, who abuses the demisexual ID to deal with the peer pressure to always want sex. Do you see the difference? Demisexual does not mean "picky." It means you are only attracted to the inner beauty of your partner.
Everyone in the ace community is so worried about being inclusive, we are letting people blatantly abuse the labels we came up with. (And I say "we" to avoid grammatical confusion. I myself did not come up with the things.) As an aromantic asexual, I feel my group being stuffed away into a little corner, to make room for aces and demis with more normal-looking relationships.
Aromanticism, which was once the assumed secondary orientation of all aces, is on its way to being swept under the rug. In an effort to make asexuals seem "normal" to the general public, the demis and even the romantics are going to become center stage. "See, we have relationships too! We have sex too! We want to have sex! We're just like you!"
But we aren't. Asexuals are fundamentally different than sexuals--that's why the label was created, to express our difference. It is wonderful that so much diversity can be contained in one label, but we must be careful with it. We must present all faces, or else break up into separate groups.
And speaking of breaking into separate groups...
A Life's second episode talked about how AVEN has too much "hold" over the whole community, and I think this is a very accurate observation. I seem to be the only asexual who hasn't even joined the forums, let alone post regularly. We, as a community, need to branch out and create subdivisions. Keep AVEN as the overarching Ace HQ, but make new homes for demis, straight-aces, gay-aces, aromantics, bi-aces, and any others.
Without new branches, people will eventually get fed up and leave the asexual community completely. And then I won't be the only one bitching about too much inclusiveness.
I feel that it is far too broad. Inclusiveness is great, but too much and the whole group loses its meaning. For example, demisexuals. Just because you're not AS sexual as you think other people are, doesn't make you part of the ace community. It boggles my mind that some people claim to be asexual and then say how they actually do desire and enjoy partnered sex. Well, which is it?
The real issue here is the media. The media's got everyone thinking how they need to always want sex! You don't want sex right this second? Sure you do, you're just repressing it! This attitude leaves the "average sexual" (as opposed to hyper-sexual) with three options: (1)pretend ze does in fact want sex all the time, (2)actively speak out about hir difference, or (3)realize that ze is actually normal.
Unfortunately, fewer and fewer people are choosing Option 3. And the more people choose Option 1, the more other people feel alienated and choose Option 2. Now, I'm not saying there is no "demisexual" category between asexuality and average sexuals. I just think it's overused, misused.
Let's look at two cases:
Case A: "Joanna"
Joanna had never before wanted sex or thought of someone as sexy, and she began identifying as asexual. Several years later, she began dating someone. As she got to know this person, she became increasingly attracted to hir. They had sex, and Joanna enjoyed it. Eventually, they broke up, and Joanna realized that she only experiences sexual attraction to people she is already "emotionally" attracted to.
Case B: "Sarah"
Sarah always hears her friends talking about how hot people are. Sarah is only attracted to a specific type of person. She started identifying as a demisexual because she doesn't seem to experience sexual attraction as much as her friends. She had gone out with several people and had enjoyed the sexual relationships with them; some of them she didn't even feel emotionally connected with. She realized she desires sex, but continues to identify as demi because she feels her desires are less than others'.
Hopefully you can see where this is going, but just in case: Joanna is demisexual because on occasion she experiences sexual attraction to people she is already emotionally attracted to. Sarah is a normal sexual, who abuses the demisexual ID to deal with the peer pressure to always want sex. Do you see the difference? Demisexual does not mean "picky." It means you are only attracted to the inner beauty of your partner.
Everyone in the ace community is so worried about being inclusive, we are letting people blatantly abuse the labels we came up with. (And I say "we" to avoid grammatical confusion. I myself did not come up with the things.) As an aromantic asexual, I feel my group being stuffed away into a little corner, to make room for aces and demis with more normal-looking relationships.
Aromanticism, which was once the assumed secondary orientation of all aces, is on its way to being swept under the rug. In an effort to make asexuals seem "normal" to the general public, the demis and even the romantics are going to become center stage. "See, we have relationships too! We have sex too! We want to have sex! We're just like you!"
But we aren't. Asexuals are fundamentally different than sexuals--that's why the label was created, to express our difference. It is wonderful that so much diversity can be contained in one label, but we must be careful with it. We must present all faces, or else break up into separate groups.
And speaking of breaking into separate groups...
A Life's second episode talked about how AVEN has too much "hold" over the whole community, and I think this is a very accurate observation. I seem to be the only asexual who hasn't even joined the forums, let alone post regularly. We, as a community, need to branch out and create subdivisions. Keep AVEN as the overarching Ace HQ, but make new homes for demis, straight-aces, gay-aces, aromantics, bi-aces, and any others.
Without new branches, people will eventually get fed up and leave the asexual community completely. And then I won't be the only one bitching about too much inclusiveness.
16 May 2009
Veg*nism and Health
In October 2007, I watched the video Meet Your Meat. It showed the most horrific images from slaughter houses. I read countless articles on veganism and decided to become one. A month later I was a full-on vegan.
Well, almost full-on. I would cheat occasionally, sneaking Hostess cupcakes or coffee cake. There's nothing wrong with cheating because I'm still eating less animal products than I would otherwise, I told myself. And anyways, this food was already bought. Eating it or throwing it out makes little difference.
There was pressure from all sides to quit veganism altogether. My mother constantly complaining how much the food cost, the rest of my family making snide remarks about my diet, my friends getting in heated debates with me about the ethics of using animal products, people making bets about how long I'd last. I continued being a cheating vegan, more determined than ever to prove them all wrong.
I ate a lot of processed foods. Mock meats, pre-made burritos, Oreos, etc. I was also consuming a lot of soy. Silk, mock meats, Oreos, and probably a bunch of other foods I'm not even aware of.
Obviously processed foods are bad. But "healthy" processed foods can't be bad, right? Soy may mess with your thyroid, but I'm not eating that much of it, am I? And so on.
After a while, veganism was no longer a moral crusade. It was a habit. It was something I did because one day I had thought it'd be a good idea. I would sometimes go back and read the arguments for veganism, but somehow they didn't seem all that convincing. I also started reading arguments against veganism.
The thing that finally made me switch back to vegetarian, though, was a blog post about health. It was not healthy to abstain from all animal products, especially not the way I was doing it. Don't get me wrong veganism can be healthy. But it takes so much planning and calculating and supplementing that it just isn't practical.
A perfect example of this situation is bread. There are a million different kinds of bread. The healthy whole-grain ones usually contain milk/whey and honey. The vegan ones are filled with chemicals and soy. This situation is typical of many, many foods.
I also found out that some of the ethically questionable practices involving farm animals were simply not true, and many others were exaggerated. The arguments for veganism appeal to emotion and are generally not logical.
I still think harming animals for pleasure is wrong, which is why I still don't eat meat and gelatin or wear suede and leather. However, I must put my health before the animals'. I cannot be blinded by emotion; I must look at the situation rationally. When I do this it is obvious that veganism is not the answer.
Well, almost full-on. I would cheat occasionally, sneaking Hostess cupcakes or coffee cake. There's nothing wrong with cheating because I'm still eating less animal products than I would otherwise, I told myself. And anyways, this food was already bought. Eating it or throwing it out makes little difference.
There was pressure from all sides to quit veganism altogether. My mother constantly complaining how much the food cost, the rest of my family making snide remarks about my diet, my friends getting in heated debates with me about the ethics of using animal products, people making bets about how long I'd last. I continued being a cheating vegan, more determined than ever to prove them all wrong.
I ate a lot of processed foods. Mock meats, pre-made burritos, Oreos, etc. I was also consuming a lot of soy. Silk, mock meats, Oreos, and probably a bunch of other foods I'm not even aware of.
Obviously processed foods are bad. But "healthy" processed foods can't be bad, right? Soy may mess with your thyroid, but I'm not eating that much of it, am I? And so on.
After a while, veganism was no longer a moral crusade. It was a habit. It was something I did because one day I had thought it'd be a good idea. I would sometimes go back and read the arguments for veganism, but somehow they didn't seem all that convincing. I also started reading arguments against veganism.
The thing that finally made me switch back to vegetarian, though, was a blog post about health. It was not healthy to abstain from all animal products, especially not the way I was doing it. Don't get me wrong veganism can be healthy. But it takes so much planning and calculating and supplementing that it just isn't practical.
A perfect example of this situation is bread. There are a million different kinds of bread. The healthy whole-grain ones usually contain milk/whey and honey. The vegan ones are filled with chemicals and soy. This situation is typical of many, many foods.
I also found out that some of the ethically questionable practices involving farm animals were simply not true, and many others were exaggerated. The arguments for veganism appeal to emotion and are generally not logical.
I still think harming animals for pleasure is wrong, which is why I still don't eat meat and gelatin or wear suede and leather. However, I must put my health before the animals'. I cannot be blinded by emotion; I must look at the situation rationally. When I do this it is obvious that veganism is not the answer.
26 March 2009
Po(st)mo(dern)sexuals
For those of you who are reluctant to visit wikipedia, a pomosexual is a person who does not believe in using labels to define orientation.
This is dripping with irony; they are labeling themselves as "people who dislike labels." I would think if they actually disliked labels, they would just say so instead of, you know, labeling themselves.
I am not sure how I feel about the actual concept. On one hand, labels are helpful to find people compatible with us (whether for sexual or romantic relationships, or even for friendships). On the other hand, labels often become limiting, especially to people whose orientations are not clear-cut.
I guess that I support the use of labels, but only when they work. For instance, I have realized that I am an asexual. However, I am not at all certain as to my "romantic orientation." I plan to go on a case-by-case basis for romantic relationships, so I don't need a label for my preferences in that area.
Labels are useful in describing ourselves, but sometimes they can't sum up our true feelings. *shrug* If they work for you, use them; if they don't, pomosexuality it is.
This is dripping with irony; they are labeling themselves as "people who dislike labels." I would think if they actually disliked labels, they would just say so instead of, you know, labeling themselves.
I am not sure how I feel about the actual concept. On one hand, labels are helpful to find people compatible with us (whether for sexual or romantic relationships, or even for friendships). On the other hand, labels often become limiting, especially to people whose orientations are not clear-cut.
I guess that I support the use of labels, but only when they work. For instance, I have realized that I am an asexual. However, I am not at all certain as to my "romantic orientation." I plan to go on a case-by-case basis for romantic relationships, so I don't need a label for my preferences in that area.
Labels are useful in describing ourselves, but sometimes they can't sum up our true feelings. *shrug* If they work for you, use them; if they don't, pomosexuality it is.
Having Children
For most people, having children is a given. It's just something that happens, a regular part of life. For others, having children is a goal, an invaluable experience. But for a minority of people, procreation is just not a point of interest. It's not that we're against children themselves, we just don't feel like being the ones to raise them and care for them.
My thinking goes like this: I can raise children and make them happy, or I can discover myself and make myself happy. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but I choose 'myself.'
I never thought my feelings of "no children for me, thanks" were very radical, but apparently they are. Apparently, some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that not everyone has the same opinions as themselves.
My brother-in-law is, unfortunately, one of these people. He is very outspoken and can get rather obnoxious, but he rarely bothers me so. In this particular incident, he was very concerned that I don't want children and would rather travel. "When you're on your deathbed," he told me earnestly, "you'll regret not having children. It doesn't matter how many stamps you have in your pass book."
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I honestly don't know where to begin.
Let's start off with the fact that he is basically claiming to understand me better than I myself do. Maybe he feels having children is the only important thing in life (I'll address that bit later), but that doesn't mean people who don't feel that way are somehow wrong or confused.
Another way to view this statement is he's saying that all people can only feel satisfied with their lives after having children. Really? All people can only feel satisfied if they have children? One of the great things about humans as a species is how diverse we are. Sure, any one person can have things in common with any other person, but to say that we all feel the same about anything is pure ignorance. Even if most people want children, it doesn't make the other people's feelings any less valid or natural.
And really what makes children such a joy? They're dependent, loud, rowdy, clingy, overemotional ... you get the idea. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to such things? They take up your time, money, and patience and give nothing in return.
I could easily turn this statement around. "When you're on your deathbed, you're going to regret not traveling and discovering yourself and the world. It doesn't matter how many children your wife popped out." Both statements put their views on a pedestal while dismissing other valid claims.
I accept that many people find happiness and, yes, satisfaction in having children. I expect other people to show the same acceptance to what makes me happy and satisfied. (Unless that is axe murdering, in which case you probably shouldn't accept it.)
So kiddies, the moral of the story is there is more than one way to achieve happiness. What works for one person, doesn't always work for everyone else. And there is nothing wrong with that.
My thinking goes like this: I can raise children and make them happy, or I can discover myself and make myself happy. Maybe I'm just being selfish, but I choose 'myself.'
I never thought my feelings of "no children for me, thanks" were very radical, but apparently they are. Apparently, some people just can't wrap their heads around the idea that not everyone has the same opinions as themselves.
My brother-in-law is, unfortunately, one of these people. He is very outspoken and can get rather obnoxious, but he rarely bothers me so. In this particular incident, he was very concerned that I don't want children and would rather travel. "When you're on your deathbed," he told me earnestly, "you'll regret not having children. It doesn't matter how many stamps you have in your pass book."
There are so many things wrong with that statement, I honestly don't know where to begin.
Let's start off with the fact that he is basically claiming to understand me better than I myself do. Maybe he feels having children is the only important thing in life (I'll address that bit later), but that doesn't mean people who don't feel that way are somehow wrong or confused.
Another way to view this statement is he's saying that all people can only feel satisfied with their lives after having children. Really? All people can only feel satisfied if they have children? One of the great things about humans as a species is how diverse we are. Sure, any one person can have things in common with any other person, but to say that we all feel the same about anything is pure ignorance. Even if most people want children, it doesn't make the other people's feelings any less valid or natural.
And really what makes children such a joy? They're dependent, loud, rowdy, clingy, overemotional ... you get the idea. Why would anyone want to subject themselves to such things? They take up your time, money, and patience and give nothing in return.
I could easily turn this statement around. "When you're on your deathbed, you're going to regret not traveling and discovering yourself and the world. It doesn't matter how many children your wife popped out." Both statements put their views on a pedestal while dismissing other valid claims.
I accept that many people find happiness and, yes, satisfaction in having children. I expect other people to show the same acceptance to what makes me happy and satisfied. (Unless that is axe murdering, in which case you probably shouldn't accept it.)
So kiddies, the moral of the story is there is more than one way to achieve happiness. What works for one person, doesn't always work for everyone else. And there is nothing wrong with that.
07 December 2008
Atheism & Soul
A common misconception of atheists is that we do not believe in the supernatural: ghosts/spirits, souls, reincarnation, etc. While this may be true for many atheists, it is not an inherent attribute. What you must first realize is "atheism" is disbelief in god(s). It says nothing else. Buddhism is an atheistic religion.
With that out of the way, I must admit I have been contemplating the existence of a soul. Again. When I first read about atheism, I immediately accepted that there wasn't a god, yet I had immense difficulty rejecting the concept of a soul. Why is this? Surely "soul" couldn't have been driven into me any more than "God" was. Less, if anything.
A soul is said to be what makes us human. It gives us our morals, it separates us from common animals. Obviously this is not a physical object, which is why I do not like godisimaginary.com's rebuttal. Really that site should have just focused on "heaven/hell" instead of getting mixed up in "soul."
If souls do exist I imagine all sentient beings having one. But, I feel that there would be different levels/depths to it. Just like how animals (some of them at least) can feel basic emotions, but humans feel deeper and more complex emotions. If the soul (as I propose it) exists, that would be the source for our emotions. Can we really put emotions down to chemical reactions? To instincts?
Anyways: when we die, these souls would go back from whence they came. Which would be some sort of spiritual force that encompasses the entire universe. It would be centered on places with the most life. It would almost be like energy. It would be entwined in nature, the essence of everything, but all the while only "active" in the aforementioned sentient beings.
Now this sounds all nice and pretty, but is it true? Well there's no way to prove it, is there? Which makes me think that it is probably not true.... If you are going to credit emotion to a soul, you also must credit personality to that soul. But I believe, firmly, that our personality stems from the way our brains developed and were wired.
Looking at this objectively, I do not believe in souls. Rather I think such concepts as "soul" "spirit" and "mind" are really just the brain in a field we don't associate with it. Namely, emotion. The brain is associated with logic and structure and concrete-ness. Hence why we feel the need to invent other concepts for our abstract emotions. In reality they are one.
And so, while my version of the soul might make me feel at peace with the world, I know that it is fantasy. If I were to still believe in it, despite its unlikeliness, I would be just as bad as the religious fanatics who refuse to look critically at their faith.
Note: I am not saying that any religious beliefs are wrong (how would I know?) rather, I am just asking that you accept the possibility that they might be.
I feel happy after making this post because I am truly fulfilling the purpose of my blog. I was confused about this subject, I wrote out my thoughts, and came to a solid conclusion. I am leaving ignorance.
With that out of the way, I must admit I have been contemplating the existence of a soul. Again. When I first read about atheism, I immediately accepted that there wasn't a god, yet I had immense difficulty rejecting the concept of a soul. Why is this? Surely "soul" couldn't have been driven into me any more than "God" was. Less, if anything.
A soul is said to be what makes us human. It gives us our morals, it separates us from common animals. Obviously this is not a physical object, which is why I do not like godisimaginary.com's rebuttal. Really that site should have just focused on "heaven/hell" instead of getting mixed up in "soul."
If souls do exist I imagine all sentient beings having one. But, I feel that there would be different levels/depths to it. Just like how animals (some of them at least) can feel basic emotions, but humans feel deeper and more complex emotions. If the soul (as I propose it) exists, that would be the source for our emotions. Can we really put emotions down to chemical reactions? To instincts?
Anyways: when we die, these souls would go back from whence they came. Which would be some sort of spiritual force that encompasses the entire universe. It would be centered on places with the most life. It would almost be like energy. It would be entwined in nature, the essence of everything, but all the while only "active" in the aforementioned sentient beings.
Now this sounds all nice and pretty, but is it true? Well there's no way to prove it, is there? Which makes me think that it is probably not true.... If you are going to credit emotion to a soul, you also must credit personality to that soul. But I believe, firmly, that our personality stems from the way our brains developed and were wired.
Looking at this objectively, I do not believe in souls. Rather I think such concepts as "soul" "spirit" and "mind" are really just the brain in a field we don't associate with it. Namely, emotion. The brain is associated with logic and structure and concrete-ness. Hence why we feel the need to invent other concepts for our abstract emotions. In reality they are one.
And so, while my version of the soul might make me feel at peace with the world, I know that it is fantasy. If I were to still believe in it, despite its unlikeliness, I would be just as bad as the religious fanatics who refuse to look critically at their faith.
Note: I am not saying that any religious beliefs are wrong (how would I know?) rather, I am just asking that you accept the possibility that they might be.
I feel happy after making this post because I am truly fulfilling the purpose of my blog. I was confused about this subject, I wrote out my thoughts, and came to a solid conclusion. I am leaving ignorance.
14 November 2008
Oh, It Is "Love"
Most everyone has had a high school crush. Oh the drama of it! Whether acted upon or not (in my case, not) it affects you profoundly. That dreadful part of the mind, the positive swamp of feelings, passively stagnant for so long, suddenly is stirred about, and all sorts of unwonted things come forward. Most teenagers say it is true love, they believe it, they live it, they love this "love."
But those few teens with logical minds (whom I fancy myself among) suffer horribly. I recognize it as a crush, something that will be meaningless to me in the long run, shallow, et cetera. Yet I can not stop myself getting caught up in this mess. Curse feelings, you clouded illusions: how I wish to cast you off and see clearly!
I know this is not love, logically it cannot be. Now I know emotions and logic do not go together, but be patient reader, explanations follow. I hardly know the person in question. I find myself envisioning his personality instead of actively seeking to know it. I am projecting the personality I wish him to have onto him, ignoring what is already there. I realize this, I see this, but I cannot stop myself doing it.
And here, you see, is the awful realization where teenage hormones come in contact with introverted thinking, and an underdeveloped extroverted feeling attempts to come into play.
The hormones of course are the main source of the problem, illogical and impossible things that they are. Wreaking havoc and flitting in and out without pattern or explanation.
The Fe attempts to judge the other person's own feelings, but in reality just blunders about making a mess of my mind. Like lazy coworkers, whom you cannot prove aren't working because you don't really know what their job is.
The Ti, normally incredibly helpful and decisive, is at a loss. In a field where logic means literally nothing, Ti is useless. In fact, it is worse than useless, it is a complete drawback. While it attempts to present results of systematic analyzation, it is ignored by its fellows.
And I am stuck containing all of these conflicting forces. I listen to the Ti carefully, but am prevented from acting upon it by the hormones. I look expectantly to the Fe so as to figure out how to react to all these things, but the poor thing isn't ready for such a job as this.
Reader, I do not expect nor want pity nor acknowledgement of my current internal struggle. If I did I would not be presenting this anonymously, would I? But I must have an outlet for such things, so you will excuse my pathetic melodrama.
But those few teens with logical minds (whom I fancy myself among) suffer horribly. I recognize it as a crush, something that will be meaningless to me in the long run, shallow, et cetera. Yet I can not stop myself getting caught up in this mess. Curse feelings, you clouded illusions: how I wish to cast you off and see clearly!
I know this is not love, logically it cannot be. Now I know emotions and logic do not go together, but be patient reader, explanations follow. I hardly know the person in question. I find myself envisioning his personality instead of actively seeking to know it. I am projecting the personality I wish him to have onto him, ignoring what is already there. I realize this, I see this, but I cannot stop myself doing it.
And here, you see, is the awful realization where teenage hormones come in contact with introverted thinking, and an underdeveloped extroverted feeling attempts to come into play.
The hormones of course are the main source of the problem, illogical and impossible things that they are. Wreaking havoc and flitting in and out without pattern or explanation.
The Fe attempts to judge the other person's own feelings, but in reality just blunders about making a mess of my mind. Like lazy coworkers, whom you cannot prove aren't working because you don't really know what their job is.
The Ti, normally incredibly helpful and decisive, is at a loss. In a field where logic means literally nothing, Ti is useless. In fact, it is worse than useless, it is a complete drawback. While it attempts to present results of systematic analyzation, it is ignored by its fellows.
And I am stuck containing all of these conflicting forces. I listen to the Ti carefully, but am prevented from acting upon it by the hormones. I look expectantly to the Fe so as to figure out how to react to all these things, but the poor thing isn't ready for such a job as this.
Reader, I do not expect nor want pity nor acknowledgement of my current internal struggle. If I did I would not be presenting this anonymously, would I? But I must have an outlet for such things, so you will excuse my pathetic melodrama.
15 October 2008
HS Reveals the Meaning of Life
Or not. In fact, it has proved that there is no meaning in life, no reason to live. But I digress..
You would think that having semi-enjoyed middle school I would feel the same way about high school. Apart from a nifty block schedule (periods 1,2,3,4 on "blue day" and 5,6,7,8 on "white day"), it's more of the same. Which leaves me wondering, If it is more of the same, why is it so much more boring? How does it drag on so? Everything is so repetitious! Taking notes doesn't bother me. Taking notes for three days, lab for one day, test the next day--that bothers me. I should not be able to know what we are doing every class for the whole year less than two months into it. Ridiculous. In fact I find all of high school so frustrating that I am going to map out my classes:
Blue Day
--------
Geometry Honors: notes and work from the book each day, worksheets before quizzes which are at the middle and end of chapters, then a review worksheet and the test. repeat. The teacher is nice enough. I know a couple people in the class, but no friends or even actual acquaintances. My love of the subject balances out my hatred for the repetitive schedule.
Into to Journalism: why, oh why, did I not take band!! this class is horrid, absolutely horrid. the teacher is really nice, but our assignments are either drawn out worksheets complete with vocab terms, or pointless projects that are nothing but busy-work. example of such a project: we had to memorize the first amendment. not what it was about or how it affected people, just rote memorization.
Pool: pool, seriously? why can't we just take two semesters of regular gym? i'm a dreadfully slow swimmer, which is becoming increasingly embarassing. to top it off, the idiot overseers (they cannot be called teachers as they do not teach us--no, not even to swim. we are just assumed to know how) As I say, our idiot overseers put me in lane six out of six with all of the ridiculously fast swimmers. The person behind me usually reaches the other side at the same time as me. well, fuck it all.
Lunch with "Friends": I have lunch at noon, which means I have gone six hours without eating. unhealthy, that. sometimes I have a snack, but normally I'm not really hungry until pool, and obviously I can't be eating in there. the people I sit with are real bitches. Two girls that I used to be really close to and a guy that I knew through them, but was never actual friends with myself. The one girl is a complete bitch, does not include me in conversations, sometimes she doesn't even say hi to me. In fact, most of the time she just ignores me. The other girl is only slightly better. She'll talk if everyone else is in the lunch line and she usually gives a hint of a greeting. I suspect girl one is heavily influencing girl two with regards to her behaviour towards me. Both of them pop up as soon as they're done eating (which doesn't take long, considering they eat the equalivalent of half a sandwich for lunch) and run off. The guy, whom I have gotten to know only marginally better, makes small talk and copies homework. He is nice, but I have to wonder how much of it is pity or general kindness, and how much is actual interest in me.
English 9 Merit: This class is gay. The teacher is semi-old and the kind that makes you want to roll your eyes a lot. We have unreasonable reading assignments, which she explans what we just "read" only after we have all failed the test. Thanks for your insight. Most illuminating.
--------
I don't really mind White Day, so I'll stop my ranting. You get the point, at any rate.
Maybe it isn't the repetition that bothers me. Looking at it now, I actually like the repetitious classes more. Because there are no time-wasting projects. No pointless group activities.
I have so much homework. Every (blue) day, every class: maths, and reading, and worksheets, and memorizing 16-25 lines from Romeo and Juliet. My procrastination has increased directly with my amount of homework, which sucks horribly. You would think procrasinators would not even think about all the work they need to do. But I do think about it. I stress about it. But I keep pushing it back. Like right now, writing about how stressed I am instead of removing the source of the stress. But even if I do all my work on time (and normally I do manage to get it all done), I get another load of it the next class.
My whole life revolves around school now. I have to wake up at 5:30 in order to catch the bus an hour later. I get home at two something, which would be nice except I'm too tired to do anything more than mindlessly watch TV or play with the new kitten (Linus, doing well, thank you). By the time my body has accepted being awake (usually with the help of a diet cherry pepsi), I only have three hours before bed at 9:30. It is proof of how unhealthy it is for teenagers to wake up early that I get a full eight hours of sleep and still spend the majority of the next day tired.
High school drags on and on. This is what life is going to be like from now on. Occasional holidays, but mostly the mundane trap of school and basic human necessity. Now high school, next college, and then work indefinately. Maybe I'll live long enough to retire, who knows. I find it unbearably sad to have finally realized that the wardrobe has a back, and the Hogwarts letter got lost in the mail and by now it's too late to catch up. Maybe magic only rescues people with fitting names like Garth Nix or Eragon.
I could mope on about this, but I must shower before Project Runway. Until my next complaint, then.
You would think that having semi-enjoyed middle school I would feel the same way about high school. Apart from a nifty block schedule (periods 1,2,3,4 on "blue day" and 5,6,7,8 on "white day"), it's more of the same. Which leaves me wondering, If it is more of the same, why is it so much more boring? How does it drag on so? Everything is so repetitious! Taking notes doesn't bother me. Taking notes for three days, lab for one day, test the next day--that bothers me. I should not be able to know what we are doing every class for the whole year less than two months into it. Ridiculous. In fact I find all of high school so frustrating that I am going to map out my classes:
Blue Day
--------
Geometry Honors: notes and work from the book each day, worksheets before quizzes which are at the middle and end of chapters, then a review worksheet and the test. repeat. The teacher is nice enough. I know a couple people in the class, but no friends or even actual acquaintances. My love of the subject balances out my hatred for the repetitive schedule.
Into to Journalism: why, oh why, did I not take band!! this class is horrid, absolutely horrid. the teacher is really nice, but our assignments are either drawn out worksheets complete with vocab terms, or pointless projects that are nothing but busy-work. example of such a project: we had to memorize the first amendment. not what it was about or how it affected people, just rote memorization.
Pool: pool, seriously? why can't we just take two semesters of regular gym? i'm a dreadfully slow swimmer, which is becoming increasingly embarassing. to top it off, the idiot overseers (they cannot be called teachers as they do not teach us--no, not even to swim. we are just assumed to know how) As I say, our idiot overseers put me in lane six out of six with all of the ridiculously fast swimmers. The person behind me usually reaches the other side at the same time as me. well, fuck it all.
Lunch with "Friends": I have lunch at noon, which means I have gone six hours without eating. unhealthy, that. sometimes I have a snack, but normally I'm not really hungry until pool, and obviously I can't be eating in there. the people I sit with are real bitches. Two girls that I used to be really close to and a guy that I knew through them, but was never actual friends with myself. The one girl is a complete bitch, does not include me in conversations, sometimes she doesn't even say hi to me. In fact, most of the time she just ignores me. The other girl is only slightly better. She'll talk if everyone else is in the lunch line and she usually gives a hint of a greeting. I suspect girl one is heavily influencing girl two with regards to her behaviour towards me. Both of them pop up as soon as they're done eating (which doesn't take long, considering they eat the equalivalent of half a sandwich for lunch) and run off. The guy, whom I have gotten to know only marginally better, makes small talk and copies homework. He is nice, but I have to wonder how much of it is pity or general kindness, and how much is actual interest in me.
English 9 Merit: This class is gay. The teacher is semi-old and the kind that makes you want to roll your eyes a lot. We have unreasonable reading assignments, which she explans what we just "read" only after we have all failed the test. Thanks for your insight. Most illuminating.
--------
I don't really mind White Day, so I'll stop my ranting. You get the point, at any rate.
Maybe it isn't the repetition that bothers me. Looking at it now, I actually like the repetitious classes more. Because there are no time-wasting projects. No pointless group activities.
I have so much homework. Every (blue) day, every class: maths, and reading, and worksheets, and memorizing 16-25 lines from Romeo and Juliet. My procrastination has increased directly with my amount of homework, which sucks horribly. You would think procrasinators would not even think about all the work they need to do. But I do think about it. I stress about it. But I keep pushing it back. Like right now, writing about how stressed I am instead of removing the source of the stress. But even if I do all my work on time (and normally I do manage to get it all done), I get another load of it the next class.
My whole life revolves around school now. I have to wake up at 5:30 in order to catch the bus an hour later. I get home at two something, which would be nice except I'm too tired to do anything more than mindlessly watch TV or play with the new kitten (Linus, doing well, thank you). By the time my body has accepted being awake (usually with the help of a diet cherry pepsi), I only have three hours before bed at 9:30. It is proof of how unhealthy it is for teenagers to wake up early that I get a full eight hours of sleep and still spend the majority of the next day tired.
High school drags on and on. This is what life is going to be like from now on. Occasional holidays, but mostly the mundane trap of school and basic human necessity. Now high school, next college, and then work indefinately. Maybe I'll live long enough to retire, who knows. I find it unbearably sad to have finally realized that the wardrobe has a back, and the Hogwarts letter got lost in the mail and by now it's too late to catch up. Maybe magic only rescues people with fitting names like Garth Nix or Eragon.
I could mope on about this, but I must shower before Project Runway. Until my next complaint, then.
05 October 2008
Possible Addition to the Family
YOU'RE PREGNANT?! No, actually I am not pregnant. In fact, no one in my family is pregnant. (Well, except for my one cousin, but she doesn't count.) But I may be getting a kitten. No--I will be getting a kitten; it may be from the Humane Society. If you are not familiar with adopting a cat from them, they grill you on everything. Via form, but still. "What would happen to the pet if someone in the family was sick?" WTF, nothing? Also, we don't take our other cat to the vet, so we must not care about her. It's nice that they want their animals to go to good homes, but they're probably scaring people off. So if this falls through, which I'm trying (and failing) to prepare myself for, we'll get one from the pound. Only one question there: do you have a home? Yes. Here ya go!
But we found the cutest little kitten at the Humane Society. Solid gray, short hair but still fluffy, and pale green eyes. He is so, so tiny. I'd forgotten how just small they are. Could sit in the palm of my hand. They named him Coal, but if we do get him, we'll be renaming him. Jude? Linus? I can't decide. Our other cat's name is Sabrina. That was the name they had given her, and I was little and couldn't think of anything better, so she got stuck with that. It does suit her though.
Sabrina is not a nice cat. She sometimes likes me, and besides that she only likes people who are allergic. She was described to us as "feisty." A bit of an understatement, that. So I am rather worried about how she's going to get on with the new one. I am hoping she'll be intrigued and not hostile, something-to-hunt, or why-don't-you-love-me. I read online that you're supposed to keep the new one in a separate room for the first few days with minimal contact between the two. We'll see how that works out.
On an unrelated note, I have a strip of eczema on the back of my neck. It doesn't itch or anything, but it's all bumpy and red. Looks a mess.
And happy October!
UPDATE: We have been appoved by the Humane Society! Hurrah :D
But we found the cutest little kitten at the Humane Society. Solid gray, short hair but still fluffy, and pale green eyes. He is so, so tiny. I'd forgotten how just small they are. Could sit in the palm of my hand. They named him Coal, but if we do get him, we'll be renaming him. Jude? Linus? I can't decide. Our other cat's name is Sabrina. That was the name they had given her, and I was little and couldn't think of anything better, so she got stuck with that. It does suit her though.
Sabrina is not a nice cat. She sometimes likes me, and besides that she only likes people who are allergic. She was described to us as "feisty." A bit of an understatement, that. So I am rather worried about how she's going to get on with the new one. I am hoping she'll be intrigued and not hostile, something-to-hunt, or why-don't-you-love-me. I read online that you're supposed to keep the new one in a separate room for the first few days with minimal contact between the two. We'll see how that works out.
On an unrelated note, I have a strip of eczema on the back of my neck. It doesn't itch or anything, but it's all bumpy and red. Looks a mess.
And happy October!
UPDATE: We have been appoved by the Humane Society! Hurrah :D
11 September 2008
07 September 2008
What's with the Name
you ask? (And I am talking about Leaving Ignorance, not Adrien.) Really this should probably have been my first post. It needs to be established right at the beginning, non? I rather jumped the gun with Free Will. Ah well, nothing to be done now.
I have titled this blog Leaving Ignorance because that is what I am doing. I am learning. About myself, others, the world, abstract concepts that have no practical use but are very interesting nonetheless. (How did "nonetheless" get to be accepted as a word? That is ridiculous.)
Now, some of you may be saying "Isn't it bad to think of 'leaving'? Shouldn't you be focusing on moving forward, moving towards something?" Well, no. I do not pretend to know what the future holds. I do not even know what I'd like it to hold. But I do know what is in the past. And this blog is about leaving ignorance in the past.
It is impossible to ever truly be rid of ignorance. There is always something to be learned. So I am not completely leaving ignorance, just shedding some layers. However "Leaving Some Ignorance" doesn't sound nearly as nice.
"That's all fine and dandy, but why name your blog that?" Because I am using my blog to learn. Writing out thoughts and debates (with myself, yes) is a very efficient way to come to a conclusion on something. Much more organized than just thinking about it. It's also nice to have things written down so in the future when I'm thinking "How could I ever have doubted free will?!" I can just go back to my post there. "Oh. That's why."
The end.
I have titled this blog Leaving Ignorance because that is what I am doing. I am learning. About myself, others, the world, abstract concepts that have no practical use but are very interesting nonetheless. (How did "nonetheless" get to be accepted as a word? That is ridiculous.)
Now, some of you may be saying "Isn't it bad to think of 'leaving'? Shouldn't you be focusing on moving forward, moving towards something?" Well, no. I do not pretend to know what the future holds. I do not even know what I'd like it to hold. But I do know what is in the past. And this blog is about leaving ignorance in the past.
It is impossible to ever truly be rid of ignorance. There is always something to be learned. So I am not completely leaving ignorance, just shedding some layers. However "Leaving Some Ignorance" doesn't sound nearly as nice.
"That's all fine and dandy, but why name your blog that?" Because I am using my blog to learn. Writing out thoughts and debates (with myself, yes) is a very efficient way to come to a conclusion on something. Much more organized than just thinking about it. It's also nice to have things written down so in the future when I'm thinking "How could I ever have doubted free will?!" I can just go back to my post there. "Oh. That's why."
The end.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)