Over the Garden Wall Brief Analysis and Thoughts

So, this post will contain massive spoilers.

If you haven't finished watching, leave now (unless you're okay with knowing beforehand what's up).

-

-

-

-

-

Are you gone?

Okay, good. Also note that the analysis is written as an afterthought to help explain my criticisms.

Wirt and his little half-brother Greg are lost and are trying to find their way home. Over eight mini-sodes (at about 10 minutes each), they meet numerous people and creatures along the way, all while getting bits and pieces of warning about "The Beast," an enigmatic creature who appears to sow despair wherever it goes. The serious and thoughtful Wirt leads his energetic and carefree companion through some of the most surrealistic animation landscapes since The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack. The two solve their problems through dumb luck and sheer willpower time and time again amidst a cast of mostly non-recurring characters except for Beatrice, their bluebird companion (and almost betrayer) and the woodsman, a man who seems to want to protect the two from The Beast while trying to keep alight a mysterious lantern. This leads up to the final act where Greg sacrifices himself to save Wirt from falling into despair and being swallowed by the forest. As it turns out, the woodsman has been serving as The Beast's pawn, keeping his soul alive with the souls of the people in the forest who gave in to despair.

After defiantly refusing to be tricked by The Beast, Wirt takes Greg and heads off, only to exit a dreamstate, where we find that the two had been drowning in a lake. They're rushed to a hospital where Wirt wakes up to find Greg recounting stories of their adventures in the Unknown world. There are a few hints to suggest that their adventures were real rather than just a death-dream, but interpretation is left open to the audience. This is in keeping with the show's general vibe, which is to give just enough information for the audience to make their own guesses as to how the situations of individual characters came about and/or were resolved respectively.

Now, my criticism of the show is a bit more... thought-out, albeit frustrated.

__________________________________________________________________

I genuinely don't know how to feel about this show. The art, music, voice acting, lighting- all gorgeous. Phenomenal. Easy 10/10 on those elements individually. However, the show felt like it was trying hard to be funny, dark, surreal, and teaching lessons of morality all at once, but I never felt that it did any of those particularly well. The only clear feelings of morality I had were the Huntsmen, who didn't understand what he was doing until the final episode, at which point, it was a relatively quick decision for him to blow out the lantern; Wirt not caring about Greg, an ethical issue which he basically solved by virtue of being knocked out and waking up to Greg missing, and Beatrice leading Wirt and Greg to what was effectively a slaver (though she too didn't understand what the request really was until right before they barged in). In every instance, the moral dilemma seemed to clear up on its own without any serious questions about character ethics having time to grow. The lesson was: everyone felt justified in being selfish until a twist showed them the error of their ways, at which time, they quickly corrected their moral problems.

It was an adorable show, and I love what they did with the world building in the last two episodes, but without building any hints as to where they came from, it was just kinda' out of the blue. I realize that one is a personal preference that simply missed the mark for me.

The ending, while certainly a warm and fuzzy one, wasn't at all what I was expecting as far as emotions go. No one made any difficult decisions (except the woodsman sorta'), and yet everyone was able to live happily ever after. At the beginning of the episode, I had started to have a gut feeling that something awful would happen, which is awesome. I love it when a show foreshadows an unhappy truth and then carries through, but this show felt like they just said "nah, no one needs to be unhappy." Not even Jason Funderberger, who wound up holding hands with the girl in the glasses.
The whole somber and surreal mood of the show was underscored by this sense of dread that something wasn't right, and that things were going to get worse before they got better was just shattered by Wirt casually deciding that that was "dumb." I'll admit that I like how he wrecked a cliche, but it was such a crucial cliche to the story that it makes me think the whole thing was irrelevant. The vicious and unsettling cycle of death, despair, loneliness, and darkness is "dumb," so he just got rid of it. Deciding that the concept of death (since that's the metaphor of the show) is dumb and just getting over it isn't how it works, and I feel like that fundamentally threw the show off for me.

I want to love this mini-series like everyone else seems to, but that ending, capping off the weird feeling that the show was trying too hard to be too many different things, and it all just falls apart to me. And maybe that's a problem with being a show on a kids' network, but hell, look at how the third season of Legend of Korra ended- not everything has to end happily, and even when it's sad, it can have a bright spot of hope supporting it. Or, it could be like season 1 of Korra, where even a happy ending has a long shadow of despair running underneath the surface.

State of Sanity Address

Well, I'm 25 years old. And I guess it's been a while since I made one of these existential posts, so it's time to get my thoughts in a row and out of my head.

I've been recently a lot more forthcoming with people who are important to me about my suicidal thoughts. The hope I had was that this would produce a more secure safety net for me and I could get a sense that I could turn to more people. Unfortunately, this is not the case- not for lack of effort on the part of loved ones, mind you, but just because I will always feel like I'm a burden and that I'm like a broken toy that keeps going back to try to get fixed. People are sick of it.

It shouldn't come as a shock to anyone that the thoughts are getting worse and increasing in frequency. On a larger scale, for the first time, I have now thought that I may not see my 26th birthday.

My quality of life is slipping, even as I go out of my way to try to improve it. Trying to eat healthier bit by bit, exercising more, putting myself out there more socially, talking to people more about my depression. These things are not making me feel better, and it occurs to me that if such large steps are ineffective, I don't want to sit here, floundering about, a fish out of water, struggling to breathe for much longer. It is painful. It is sad. I am not happy. These are the themes that re-emerge in my life.

It's ridiculous, in part because I know that the support structure is there and is willing, but I just can't bring myself to bother them more than I already do. One of my longest and dearest friends spoke with me about it recently, and I confided in her that I don't think I could ever actually commit to anything until I wrote. Specifically, until I wrote a letter to every person who is important to me for whom I have things left to say. That was my stated barrier and restraint.

As of writing this, I still have not started writing those letters, and I do not want to, but I also am unsure exactly how much longer I can put this off.

In another instance, my brother with whom I was semi-estranged for years (someone with whom I had had approximately 2 serious conversations in the past) reached out to me to ask me if I was okay. For some reason, that made me bawl. I'm not sure if it was because I felt like someone cared, or if it was because of how obvious it must be that I'm unhappy. And if it's that obvious, what must people think of me as they watch me drift from day to day. Are they just waiting for the day? Are they expecting it? How many of them wouldn't miss me? How many would be happier with me gone? Are they taking bets? Surely, I'm over-estimating how much anyone else is invested in noticing me at all.

Whenever someone takes their own life, you always hear something about how no one saw it coming. No one had any idea the depths of their despair and hopelessness. But what if they did? What if there's just nothing that can be done? Our society is so narrowly focused that there's little to be done for the people who don't travel in the "right" direction. My boss actually told me last week that it was a privilege to work in this law firm; that we were helping people whether they realized it or not. On the one hand, I don't disagree. We get injured people money from insurance companies so that they can go on to resume their lives as best as they can. But, in another very real sense, we're a band-aid covering a wound too big for us. And that wound is one of many. These are the systemic flaws in the world that are nothing short of truly disheartening. So many people are suffering, and there's so little being done about it. The people that do try can spend their entire lives doing so very little for so few. The system is not designed so that people are happy; it's designed so that people make money. In particular, an unbelievably small number of people are the ones making money.

The rest of us are just barely keeping ourselves alive, draining our energy and our passion for those few- just so that we can get up and do it again the next day.
I'm not really interested in being a part of that process, and I've already put up with it for longer than I was comfortable with.

So, what's the state of my sanity? You're already getting a pretty good picture, but here I sit on my birthday, crying my eyes out trying to figure out if I'm going to be alive this time next year.

I really don't want to start writing those letters. It'll just hurt more. I don't want to hurt more. I just want to go to sleep and not wake up.

Misc. Thoughts on Rape and "False Allegations" in our Country

I've bandied about this overarching topic a lot, visiting the realms of extremism on both sides, and a lot of the ground in between. I've been called a good feminist, a misogynist, a misandrist, and plenty of other things. I can't pretend that I have any good answers or that I'm any more "right" about this topic, but I still have a few thoughts floating about.

My personal take on it is that there are two main conversations people are trying to have which come from two fundamentally different positions. This, I think, comes down to a single sticking point: Who you want to protect.

Namely, whether you're more interested in protecting the 2-8% of men who, according to our best statistics, have false rape allegations brought against them , or if you're more concerned with protecting the 92-98% of women who were raped. For the purposes of this discussion, I'm running with a viewpoint of the rate of false rape allegations similar to the one taken in this article. It gets its statistics from what might be the best source we have (though that does NOT make it free from bias and error).

There is an extent to which I believe that "innocent before proven guilty" is a good thing in our society. Without it, we might return to the red scare- witch hunts. However, if we strictly adhere to it, we cannot punish crimes for which intent/consent is the main distinguishing factor from an otherwise legal act. This includes rape, bullying, harassment, verbal/emotional assault. These are problems that -primarily- affect women (and other minorities). Given that, it's likely they were, in part, developed as a means of subjugating certain people. In that event, it should come as no surprise that feminism is fighting back on the side of the 92-98%. They're fighting back against the underlying subjugation; not just the individual crime.

We, as males, have to accept that we don't know what it's like living with that subjugation. We don't know what it's like to be in fear of those things (usually) negatively impacting our lives specifically. And we don't know what it's like to know that the people enacting those crimes against us are probably not going to ever be punished for it.

I do not have a good answer to this problem. We either have to lay down our stringent attachment to "innocent until proven guilty" for that particular type of crime that I mentioned, or else we have to continue letting people subjugate women (and others) until we develop the perfect lie detector that we can use to punish those who commit these crimes.

I am personally in the former camp. I think in order to prove that we want women to be on equal footing, we have to sacrifice some of the things that make us secure- as a show of good faith. Some innocent people will get caught in the crossfire, but far more guilty people will be caught, and being a woman will be at least a little less dangerous.

However, I can understand where the people in the latter camp are coming from- even if I don't agree with them. It's easy for educated, middle class, white males to be bothered by philosophical inconsistencies present in our legal system. Unfortunately, what a lot of us either don't understand or refuse to accept is that the inconsistencies are already present, just swinging in the other direction. It's a scary prospect to give up power and put your trust in a demographic not to abuse a rule that could very easily be abused. But, that's what males have been doing this whole time.

Would this increase the rate of false rape allegations? It's hard to argue that it wouldn't. But that might just be the price we have to pay for making an already oppressed people feel safer.

We Are Weeping

http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/

So I spotted this link on a friend's wall. It's a longish blogpost that almost eerily describes what it feels like to have first-world depression.

Provided in the meat of this post are some haunting bits:

So now you’ve got this degree that’s worth fuck-all, a house that’s worth more as scrap lumber than as a substantial investment, and you’re either going to lose your job or have to do the work of two people, because there’s a recession on. Except they keep saying the recession ended, so why are you still working twice as hard for the same amount of money? 

and 

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day? - See more at: http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/#sthash.o6CMd28Q.dpuf

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day?

and finally

I don’t remember ever feeling this miserable and depressed in my life, this sense of futility that makes you wish you’d simply go numb and not care anymore. I think a lot about killing myself these days. Don’t worry, I’m not going to do it and this isn’t a cry for help. But I wake up and think: fuck, more of this? Really? How much more? And is it really worth it?

This author, a generation before me, has hit the same wall that many in our generation are struggling against; a wall of almost pure futility, despair, and sadness. The indisputable realization that we're dollar signs all day, every day. Our time at work is defined by how much money we can generate. Our time at home is defined by how much money we spend- staying alive, having hobbies, being "happy." Our time asleep is defined by our ability to get up the next day to repeat the process. The actual elements of human joy- companionship, interaction, fulfillment, exercise (mental/physical/emotional), educational betterment- that are all things that are secondary. We are not allowed to prioritize our actual happiness over our ability to generate profit for someone else in order to scrape out a meager existence. We do this for a full 1/3 - 1/2 of our day; the part of our day where we have the most energy, so that we've spent just enough time crushing our own souls such when we get home, there's seldom anything left but fatigue.

What kind of a life is that? Some of us are lucky enough to have a job that's fulfilling (though it's usually one that we can barely live off of), but for the vast majority of us, it's a job necessary to the functioning of society, or more likely, a middle-man company that makes profit off of complicating what should be a relatively simple process in daily life. We are money's bitch.
That's all we are.

And it sucks, and it's sad.

At the same time, while I understand and am intimately familiar with this author's sense of hopelessness, and thoughts of suicide, he cuts off nearly halfway into the article, from talking about the important problems in the world, to bemoan the current state of music and movies. And all at once, my demeanor stiffened just a bit because I'm reminded of Socrates' oft-attributed quote (whether it's an appropriate attribution or not)-

The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.

 This is some grade A "back in my day" BS that people have been throwing out literally every single generation since the beginning of recorded history. The music isn't worse; you're listening to the genres that you don't like. You're watching the movies that are profit-gobbling pieces of regurgitated trash. Art hasn't gotten worse, you've just started noticing things aside from what you love.

The catch here is that this phenomenon tickles at the depression problem we're suffering. There have always been wars, there's always been corruption. The generation before us always thinks that we're worse than they were at that age. But I think the fundamental reason this is affecting our generation so much more than generations past is our access to knowledge. Our access to these videos, to the horrors in the world. We hear about all the bad that happens, and it's no longer just hear-say, but there are videos and pictures. We have massive communities of people online who can get together and share their experiences. The sense of hopeless dread passes like a plague across all geographical space, because those boundaries have now disappeared.

So, what's the solution? Go back to a time before the internet? Everyone thinks that if you look back far enough, there's some sort of magical utopian time in history that can be pointed to, but it's just not the case. The more we convince ourselves that the past holds some kind of secret to happiness, the less likely we are to actually solve the problems we have in the here and now.

And perhaps in that regard, he concludes it best:

I don’t believe anymore that the answer lies in more or better tech, or even awareness. I think the only thing that can save us is us. I think we need to find ways to tribe up again, to find each other and put our arms around each other and make that charm against the dark. I don’t mean in any hateful or exclusionary way, of course. But I think like minds need to pull together and pool our resources and rage against the dying of the light. And I do think rage is a component that’s necessary here: a final fundamental fed-up-ness with the bullshit and an unwillingness to give any more ground to the things that are doing us in. To stop being reasonable. To stop being well-behaved. Not to hate those who are hurting us with their greed and psychopathic self-interest, but to simply stop letting them do it. The best way to defeat an enemy is not to destroy them, but to make them irrelevant.

There's a philosophical part of me that sees nothing wrong with this idea. To take back what is ours.

But, there is a pragmatic part of me that knows we are not the ones in charge, and to defy the hand that feeds us is to accept the consequences of having no food. For many, that is simply not an option. This is the part of me that considers purchasing a gun and a single bullet myself. The cynical part of me who has already lost the battle without having thrown so much as a real punch. The part of me who has struggled just to dodge the punches thrown at me.

So, where do we turn when we're unhappy and everyone else is drained to the bone dealing with their own unhappiness? We are a people enslaved in mind moreso than body, but is that any less real?

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day? - See more at: http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/#sthash.o6CMd28Q.dpuf

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day? - See more at: http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/#sthash.o6CMd28Q.dpuf

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day? - See more at: http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/#sthash.o6CMd28Q.dpuf

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day? - See more at: http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/#sthash.o6CMd28Q.dpuf

Yesterday morning, when I woke up, I clicked on a video in my Twitter feed that showed mutilated children being dragged from the streets of Gaza. And I started sobbing — just sobbing, sitting there in my bed with the covers around my waist, saying “Fuck, fuck, fuck,” over and over to the empty room. Dead children, torn to bits. And then it was time for…what? Get up, eat my cereal, go about my day? Every day? - See more at: http://zenarchery.com/2014/08/everyone-i-know-is-brokenhearted/#sthash.o6CMd28Q.dpuf

A Treatise on Monopoly

So, my brother unintentionally convinced me to write a critical analysis of Monopoly in spite of/because of the fact that I hate it.

Monopoly, designed in 1933 and produced in 1935, is so steeped in American culture that if someone utters the phrase "boardgame," most people will think of Monopoly before any others.

For those somehow unfamiliar, Monopoly is a board game that takes place on a square board with the four edges representing streets with properties on them for the players to buy. Players roll a pair of dice and move down the avenue of the board clockwise, buying properties and charging rent from other players who land on those properties. The goal of the game is to not go bankrupt. The more extravagant your property becomes, the more money charged when another player lands on it, allowing you to force people into bankruptcy by staying at your crummy hotel. Along with the 22 main properties (that can have houses and hotels on them), there are 6 lesser properties that can never make a huge amount of money from the other players, but are cheap sources of decent money. Monopoly is a game that thrives on a model of board gaming that had then become the norm for almost an entire generation: roll-and-move. The idea is that the game more or less plays itself. You roll the dice and move that number of spaces forward, doing whatever you are instructed to do on the space upon which you landed.

Meaningful decisions were entirely in how/when/what deals you brokered with other players. Beyond that, the game was an automated luck-machine that took two hours to play. Parker Brothers pushed Monopoly as a patriotic symbol of Americanism in a time when communism had become the major perceived threat. The concept of capitalism being the "best" economic policy was being reinforced as new generations grew up playing Monopoly. Additionally, because of its incredibly small learning curve, it was easy to introduce new players. It was the ideal family night activity for rambunctious kids and exasperated parents- one that didn't require thought, but still allowed you to bond with your children.

This accessibility, however, has played the part of a double-edged sword. While more people accepted the idea of gaming as a "normal" activity, the simplicity of Monopoly (and games developed thereafter) gave our culture the implication that gaming was a strictly childish activity, to be turned to by children or as a means of captivating children. For those that have accepted the idea of playing games as a valid past time for adults, the problem is that all games were seen to be filled to the brim with luck and low on meaningful choices. This led to the stagnation of boardgame design for just shy of 60 years when Settlers of Catan took the world by storm.

More than being an overly simplistic game, however, Monopoly started a dangerous precedent in the world of gaming; that in order to win, everyone else must lose. In this particular case, everyone else must lose everything. Even the person who comes in "second," despite lasting potentially much longer than other players, walks away with exactly nothing, giving early boardgames a sense of "all or none." It's only recently that gaming has broken away from that convention using common mechanics like victory points to definitively place players on a spectrum towards victory, rather than a binary switch between "victor" and "loser."

Monopoly is a game about following orders, never making decisions, and accepting that luck will determine who wins. The fact that this formula has worked its way so deeply into the expected culture of boardgaming is at least partially indicative of why Americans often feel that "games" are toys for children. That one game can set back the course of game design/development by decades on its own is astonishing, and yet here we are, almost 80 years later, only now coming to our own as a hobby.


Socially, Monopoly has done its share of harm as well, but that's not the main purpose of this post, so I'll just touch a tiny bit on that.

Not only has the aspect of winner v. loser been damaging to the longevity of gaming as a culture, but it actually has been perpetuating negative expectations about American economics. Namely, that the middle class can't exist. You have one hyper-rich person for every 2-4 people. The rest? Dirt poor. This mindset has reinforced a refusal to compromise in our society, as well as the tendency to think that if someone has nothing, they simply weren't as "good" as the person who has everything. Monopoly also starts players on equal footing, reinforcing the notion that everyone has the same opportunities

What It's Like to Cry

So, there's something peculiar I've noticed about aging: With each year that passes, I shed tears more easily, particularly at fictional works. Even stories that end on a fundamentally hopeful note, I get choked up and find myself unable to continue, too distraught over how perfectly imperfect the world is and how that fact is eerily represented in works of fantasy.

Change.

Scary though it may be, is more sad than anything in this regard. It represents an inability to simply stop. It highlights our total lack of control over the universe around us. Old friendships fade and new ones replace them; fires sputter and die, to be reborn elsewhere; and like Theseus' ship, our entire lives are slowly recrafted over time, often in unpredictable and massive ways. What's sad is not that the world around us is in flux, but rather, that we cannot, even for a moment, return to a previous time by any means except our memories.

This is especially cruel when our perceived sense of well-being, hope, and happiness was greater in our memories than it remains in the present.
To walk down the road and find the most amazing flower that smelled of spring breeze and the essence of life itself, only to walk away and be unable to remember that scent later, but also unable to turn around and revisit it.

Our linear path forward is one filled with regret and longing. And all I can do is sit here and cry my eyes out for the feelings of remorse others have over the swift flow of time, because I cannot shed tears for my own position in the river.

So what's causing me to cry like this? I know I haven't grown up enough to suddenly be in touch with the sorrow that everyone else in the world (real or otherwise) feel. Maybe it's finally catching up with me, and my need to cry about forlorn happenings is being satisfied through fantasy so that I don't have to feel guilty for deriving my emotional needs from the real pain of others.

And yet... I can't help but continue to take part in stories that offer no happy ending and are riddled with pain and sadness. Is that my body's way of telling me I need to empathize more?

Just another thought for another day.

Some Logical Misconceptions

This supreme court decision has me pissed off for all the reasons you might expect, plus a few more. And not just on the part of the justices. But I want to do due diligence to where err'ybody screwed the pooch on this one.

The argument against providing contraceptive care to women:

1. We're forced to pay, with taxes, for many things we don't necessarily agree with. It's part of being a functioning society. Sorry Hobby Lobby, you don't deserve special rights on that one or else I wouldn't have to pay for war or the salaries of a useless congress.

2. Your entire argument is predicated on the assumption that contraception and abortion are the same thing. Medically speaking, they're not. If they were, you'd run down some very tricky territory wherein doing anything to prevent pregnancy becomes a sin, including abstinence. As such, the claim that it's a "sincerely held religious belief" isn't something I buy. Your definitions are just poorly constructed. Start over and do it better.

3. You still provide vasectomies on your plan? Okay, Hobby Lobby, you've gone past ethical hypocrisy and straight into the territory of legal hypocrisy. The argument loses any weight it has and the facade you've cast on the issue being about "religious beliefs" falls, revealing your desire to either control women's bodies or at least get a free pass from funding the personal medical choices of individual human beings with tax payer dollars. In both cases, you're shitlords.

4. No one has the right to decline anyone medical treatment that is either a health concern or measurably improves their lives. That's the whole point of this healthcare system. Shut up and deal with it.

5. The ability to argue against using taxpayer dollars for anything you deem an affront to your "sincere" religious beliefs is unbelievable. It paves the way for countless absurd arguments that allow individual liberties to surpass the rights of people to be happy and healthy. Moreover, it provides for corporations to surpass those rights as well. This means if it's someone's "sincere" religious belief that hiring black people is immoral, they're allowed to be racist. And since you seem okay with removing the barrier between church and state on this, we're forced to reconcile the fact that this whole territory of ethics is totally subjective and we can pretty much make up whatever the hell we want to rationalize our prejudices.
At that point, we get into thought police; "It's my sincerely held religious belief that being a conservative is immoral, so I'm allowed to not hire someone based on their political beliefs."

6. You don't get to pick and choose. If you want the government and your employees to adhere to your strict moral code, you're going to have to put, in writing, exactly what your moral code is (that may take a while) and then we get to point out how you're profiteering (sin) using goods provided by foreign companies that use sweat shop labor (sin). Worth noting that I'm sure we'd also be able to catch you on about a million shitty technicalities since your code of ethics is based on a book that is almost entirely culturally irrelevant (as far as norms, practices, laws, expectations, and historical context goes) at this point...

7. Once you step into the territory of indirect harms being totally acceptable to inflict for religious reasons, you stand outside the door of direct harms. You're allowed to decide what medical treatments your employees get? What's to stop your ethics from demanding that you punish "unethical" behavior with physical force when it occurs in your workplace? What's to stop them from retaliating if your behavior is unethical based on their beliefs?

You see where this is going? It's a dumbass circle that spawns from you deciding that your arbitrarily-determined set of moral stances are allowed to circumvent those of the state. Which means yes, at some point, we do have to accept that there is going to be an imperfect "universal" ethics utilized by our government (spooky, I know) to prevent as much harm as possible.
Your personal quibbles fall outside this umbrella, and you should expect to get rained on as a result. But, by forcing the umbrella to come cover you, you've ripped a far larger hole in it, drastically increasing the number of people whose rights are doused just so you can feel personal ethical comfort.

Good on you, assholes.





My big complaint with the other side right now;

Stop comparing Viagra to contraceptives; this isn't some obvious hypocrisy. Contraception (or rather the prevention of pregnancy) is the ethical ground being argued by these corporations. Viagra is not a contraceptive. By their own ethics, Hobby Lobby is not being hypocritical. You're falsely conflating the issue of contraceptives vs. other drugs with male drug vs. female drug. If Hobby Lobby was arguing from the stance that they shouldn't have to provide healthcare for the personal choice to live a sexual life, then yeah, Viagra would fall under the realm of that and their position would be hypocritical. As it stands, you may not like it, but it's not a contradiction of their argued beliefs. It's BS that they think they can pick and choose, but to highlight Viagra here doesn't make much sense in the context of their argument.
Now for vasectomy? That is a totally valid comparison since they both serve the same function. In that way, Hobby Lobby is absolutely being hypocritical, and they deserve to be lambasted for it.



--


As an aside, I get that you're frustrated that the 5 clowns who made this decision were all males. But I think there's an important concern in tandem here- whether anyone has the right to deny any other individual human being access to healthcare of any kind that is either a medical necessity or else improves a person's quality of life. I address this in #4 above. The precedent set by this case will be that if someone's "sincere" beliefs are that medical care is a sin, then they can refuse it to anyone. If the same 5 had agreed that vasectomies could be banned (I realize that's not the case due to the sexist nature of the argument), we'd be running up against the same moral dilemma in the long run. If we strive only to address that men have no say in women's health issues, then it won't be long before we run into the same (or a similar) problem again.
[My original perspective that people should have a say in issues relevant to others than themselves has been revised significantly based on an argument I had with myself where I talked myself into a corner. If it's an issue of personal health that doesn't affect another living being, no one else has the right to interject. Luckily, I'd only started to make my original position public once and I deleted it. Didn't make too much of an asshole of myself this time.]

Regarding the Defense of Cheating (Game Studies)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er-E1vxEnic&feature=em-uploademail

Okay- I FINALLY got around to watching this video- it's been on my list for some months now.

I have a number of thoughts on this, since I love exploiting systems.

First and foremost, the video uses some terminology that I don't identify with terribly well.

So, for my own purposes, I'd like to narrow the lines a bit. The video uses:

1. Spoilsports

2. By the Code

3. Cheaters

For a broad discussion, I think these three distinctions are probably fine, but as someone pretty steeped in both game culture and the seedy underbelly therein, it's not fine for me.

Spoilsports come in many shapes and sizes, but to me, it's an indicator of a particular attitude, not a type of person necessarily. To give you an idea of what I mean, let me give you a jumble of examples of types of gamers that typically have this kind of attitude:

1. "Tryhards";

2. Scammers;

3. Hackers;

4. Legal positivists;

5. Abusers;

6. Sore losers; etc

Aptly named "spoilsports" take the fun out of the game in one way or another. These are the people who take rules to the letter in circumstances where it is inappropriate (taking advantage of a simple misunderstanding, for instance). They're the people who can't take losing, the people who make it agonizing to play the game in general. Much of this behavior does not fall under the realm of cheating in any way, shape, or form. Really, it's just behavior that makes other players hate you.

"By the Code" is a distinction that fails to differentiate between "glitches," "exploits," "scams," and even things like bots.

Glitches or bugs are programming errors that result in the game world not functioning properly. Some bugs are completely inert, and some can give players an enormous advantage.

Exploit, however, refers to both an action and a noun. An exploit is an advantage that one gets from something within the game. Exploiting is the act of taking that advantage.
For this reason, you can exploit a glitch/bug or you can exploit a game mechanic that is working 100% as intended. To give you an example of how these two things are different, let's look at an actual game scenario or two:

In an adventure game, you come across a wall that, if approached from the correct angle, you can pass through. Unfortunately, passing through it gets you stuck and gives you no advantages whatsoever. This is an example of a bug/glitch, but not an exploit.

Now take that same example and apply it to an online, first person shooter. You can't exit the wall, but it turns out you can shoot through the wall when on the side you're on. This means you're basically able to shoot people without being seen or shot in return. This is an exploit of a bug/glitch.

Finally, swapping to an economy-based MMO, let's say you find a shop where you can buy an item for 10 gold. It turns out, the game is programmed such that the same item can be sold back to the merchant for 15 gold. You buy and sell the item over and over for infinite money. This is a mechanic working correctly, but poorly considered that you're taking advantage of. Therefore, it's an exploit, but not a bug/glitch; you're simply using it to an unintended consequence.

While both of these are considered "in the code," one is clearly intentional (but ill-thought-out) while the other is not intentional at all. That important distinction is sometimes the cutoff point for what players find "acceptable" behavior.


After that, you have the weird territory of "bots" or the automation of any process in-game. A good example is that I'm playing a game right now where I can cast a buff on one of my characters every 8 seconds, but it's kind of hard to tell when those 8 seconds are up while all this other crap is going on. So, I modified an AutoHotKey (a program that automates keystrokes and mouse movements) script to do it for me. This represents an interesting area of the "cheating" discussion, since this is often considered smart playing rather than cheating. You're using a tool outside of the game to improve your performance inside the game, utilizing the game's programming only.

By contrast, you have "hacking," which is a process that involves changing how the game functions through use of outside programs. This is a misnomer, since actual hacking doesn't work quite like that, but in gaming, this is what "hacking" has come to mean. Few people consider "hacking" an appropriate means of gaining an edge since it requires both an outside program and it changes the way the game operates on a fundamental basis in order to give you an advantage.


All that said, this video raises a few interesting points about what these different tactics do to the evolution of gaming both on a macro level and on a micro level. However, this video blurs the line between strategy and cheating, which I don't think is necessarily appropriate. The zerg example, in particular, highlights what I mean here. This is an example of emergent gameplay. A strategy that develops by the players' ingenuity rather than the intention of the game designers necessarily.
This is very similar to the gold exploit I cited earlier, but with one very major difference:

In the case of the gold exploit, a designer's natural response will be "oops" and to come out with a patch to close the loophole. In the case of the zerg tactic, a designer will change nothing in the game, since it doesn't create an imbalance or effectively destroy any individual parts of the game.
In this way, both intention and consequence are important in determining what to label our actions in-game.

Moreover, there's no weight given in the video to the adequacy of the game design. Why does this matter? Well, the narrator addressed it a bit by noting that there are some games where a strategy comes out as the "dominant" strategy that pretty much everyone uses. A strategy that is objectively better than all the others, thus breaking a game and ruining any meta-strategies one might otherwise come up with. A good example of this is a card game, A Few Acres of Snow, which has a tactic that is virtually unbeatable if you use it. A tactic that only applies to one particular player per game. This is not an example of cheating or emergent gameplay, since it's within the game, intentional, and based on the fundamentally poor design of a game's mechanics rather than anything else. The big difference between this and an exploit as cited before is that this cannot be fixed (or at the very least, it cannot be fixed easily). It is too foundational to how the game functions and would require basically remaking the game from the ground up to fix.


In every single one of these circumstances, as the narrator points out, players and designers are being encouraged to collectively determine what is "acceptable" gameplay behavior, what is "good" game design, and how to best progress from where we are to where we want to be in terms of games. I think to that end, there's definitely an extent to which much of this behavior does help the evolution of gaming. Some of it, however, represents a re-affirmation of behavior we already knew we didn't want in games. A lot of this comes in the form of spoilsports who hack. Players who deliberately ruin the game for others at no benefit to anyone using outside programs that are not accessible to other players.
Rightly so, these people are "jerks."

Move Along

EDIT CIRCA 2024: I'm opting to leave up original posts that I'm... not especially fond of, because I think it's important to understand and face our respective intellectual and emotional journeys. With that in mind, however, this post is no longer applicable. I slowly curved back as a feminist over the three or so years after this post. There are elements of it that I still agree with, but I think I ultimately misread a truth about social movements in general, which is that they're all movements with large elements of passion next to large elements of reason. Even in scientific fields meant to be relatively unbiased by emotion, I think people are generally uncomfortable confronting the fact that it's absolutely riddled with passion and manipulation for the purpose of sending a message. 

I'm not perfect and I never will be. But on this issue, I think I came around in the right way. Sure, my biggest strength is carrying an analytical and critical approach to issues, but that doesn't have to be devoid of compassion or passion. People are suffering and they deserve to be heard, respected, and cared for. Regardless of anyone else's motivation for or approach to social issues, my own motivation and approach can be about both empathy and logic. And for anyone whose approach I disagree with, I can safely ignore them unless they solicit my opinion. For the morbidly curious, my original post is below:

 

This is a personal post more than anything to document the moment whereupon I have decided to no longer identify as a feminist.

To be clear, I believe in equal rights for everyone, I believe in the existence of privilege (and its weight towards males, whites, and heterosexuals, as well as those who can pass), and I believe that gender roles are an absurd contrivance of a culture that is regressive at best.

The reason I'm finally picking a side of the fence to fall on in this issue is because it has become apparent that feminism is not a place for discussion. It is a place for passionate movement and sympathy only.

I am not suggesting that this is a bad thing, but rather that it's irrelevant for me personally. I cannot offer the sympathy sought after by feminism since I am a man who knows not their struggles, and I cannot abide by passion that is not carefully tempered when it is for the purpose of a social movement.
I do not contest the necessity of pure force of will or passion in the fight for equality and the fight to end atrocities committed out of prejudice and bigotry. However, I will not participate in a movement that sees this passion as mutually exclusive with careful consideration of words and actions.

As the very height of privilege incarnate, my dis-alignment with the movement will create no ripples; it will be a surprise to no one, and it will be seen (by the few who choose to waste the energy) as confirmation that this is a zero sum game and it's us or them.

But I am tired of trying to apply my one strong skill to the grounds of feminism. Rhetorical criticism is expected for the refinement of papers and formal arguments. But for ideas, chants, slogans? It has no apparent place.

I will continue to fight the horrendous wave of racism, sexism, and prejudice when and where I see it.

Because this is assuredly a testament to my gross ignorance, my willful support of the status quo, and proof that I'm a misogynist jerkoff, I will expect and accept any friends who wish to distance themselves from me for this position.

No. No, Nope, Nope, No, Nu-uh, You're Kidding Me...

Everyone who's had the displeasure of engaging in a spirited debate with me knows that I'm extremely liberal in a firmly moderate way when it comes to issues of feminism. I still consider myself a feminist, but I go out of my way to call out what I see as problematic behavior on both sides of the fence. I try desperately to see both sides of any argument. While I believe feminism is and was a necessary movement that has afforded so much good for our society, I believe that with any movement, there are extreme elements that not only provide their own problematic viewpoints, but also pollute the roots of the movement in subtle ways.

But I'm absolutely not here to harp on what I perceive to be the shortcomings of a social movement that I support (this time). I need to blast the other side of this issue, because holy shit are privileged white males tearing out my last nerve (I say knowing full well that I fall squarely into that demographic).

Today, I had the misfortune of stumbling upon a Reddit thread about a false rape conviction. Predictably, the comments in it were largely misguided, shameful, abhorrent, and downright ignorant. There was, however, one gem that carried a glossy sheen more blinding than the rest;

http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/264tdv/til_brian_banks_was_ordered_to_serve_5_years_in/chnt6jv

I had originally upvoted (Reddit's system of Likes) this comment having interpreted it as a mockery of how absurd it is that we don't focus on the problem of rape in our society and instead focus on the concerns that arise from that problem. I thought it was really clever at first glance!
Then I saw the first few comments under it and re-read it a few times.

Dear Christ, I think this person is actually making fun of the root phrase about teaching men not to rape...

And the subsequent comments are virtually all agreeing with this person... How is that even..?
No. Alright. Back up. I'm going to try to pick this apart, one grueling misconception at a time.

1. You know how many women I would have raped by now if it wasn't for someone teaching me not too? /s

This is not how sociology works. People are not born bad or good as you are implying, anonymous internet patron. People are actually taught what behavior is acceptable to model and what behavior is unacceptable to model. This is why people in impoverished homes are more likely to commit crime- their upbringing often lacks an educational background as well as structure and discipline, while the environment encourages a life of crime for a number of factors.
People are not born rapists, nor are they born saints. People are taught how to act, and our individual personality adjusts to our environment combined with how we conceive of the world as we age. This accounts for individual differentiation, since biology does play some role. This explains why identical twins, reared separately, still wind up very similar to each other despite differing environments. It also explains why environment directly impacts crime rates, IQ, and a host of other life factors.

In short, what I'm saying in response to you is "Maybe a lot! Who knows?"

2. None of this in any way defends the original quote. But I know that a lot of feminists just like pissing in the face of men, and love issuing long screeds in defense of the indefensible.

No one is defending false rape allegations. They're defending the ideology that we should fix the root issue, which is poorly raising our children and poorly reinforcing our culture. Most feminists are just looking for things like making sure that they and their loved ones aren't being raped. Spitting in the faces of men specifically is something we might more appropriately attribute to specific, extreme sections of the feminist movement. The quote itself is completely defensible for the reason I stated above.

3. I've recently been seeing people give advice about how to stay safe at the Fifa World Cup in Rio. Shouldn't they be focusing on instead telling the criminals in Rio to stop?

Sorta', yeah. Telling someone when they're already a criminal to stop isn't very effective though (still better than waiting until after they're done and punishing them). No, what the quote means is that we should teach our kids how to appropriately behave, which includes nuanced differentiation between what is and what is not okay. Leaving any open gaps invites people to learn the lessons from society directly. This, in turn, perpetuates the problem. When we have a society where, for example, 33% of Pakistani police believe that women sometimes deserve rape, then we're inviting our kids to potentially take these lessons away as acceptable.
By our inaction, we are potentially allowing our children, peers, loved ones, students, etc. to make the incorrect assumption that some rape is "legitimate" and some rape isn't.

4. lol a feminist blog. bleh. No there isn't a "sea of rape" going on. ffs. Just because feminist said so. Is a bullshit blog women are all victims etc. Just bullshit.

In fairness, this depends on your definition of the hyperbole "sea," however, going by the statistics found here once again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
We can use the UN's baseline of 250,000 reported rape/rape attempts per year in 68 countries.
If we assume the low-end of the UK's studies which estimate 75-95% of rapes go unreported (and I can't imagine how many attempted rapes go unreported), then we can assume that 250,000 is, at minimum, only about 1/4 of the actually number, indicating at least a million per year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

That's about double the estimated homicide rate per year in the world.
So yes. Yes I would use the word "sea," going purely by low-estimate statistics. The blog post that was linked to you was not to be taken as a study or a fact, it was to be taken as an argument which presents studies, facts, claims, and a logical progression of thought.



I'm so angry, I can barely see straight.

Perjury sucks. It is illegal for good reason.
Provided the account in the article linked is accurate, the woman who did this deserves the book thrown at her.

But you know what would stop false rape claims? If we address the societal problem of talking about false rape claims as though that is the major issue at play here- if we address the societal problem of ignoring rape is a serious concern- if we address the societal problem of dismissing some rapes and holding others as "legitimate"- if we talk about why people grow up and commit crimes, maybe we'll fix the over-present crime itself, which would fix the false reporting of that crime in tandem.

What is being advocated here by these people is akin to a doctor trying to treat the numb arm symptoms of a heart attack without treating the fucking heart attack or, even better, addressing what caused the heart attack in the first place!

I'm not going to fare particularly well with this message, but I am going to post a copy of this argument on several of the offending comments on Reddit.

Okay!

My fingers look like they've been run through a wood chipper, but if that's the worst to come out of this descent, I'll take it.
My mood has picked up quite sharply, and the feelings of doom and gloom are vanishing with the rain. (Normally, rain makes me feel good, so I'm not sure what this is about)
Suicidal ideation was there, but brief.

I'm sorry to anyone who may have worried about me. This crap is still new to me since the medications are doing weird and unpredictable things to me. I appreciate your support and concern, and if I don't voice that appreciation enough, it's because I'm a butt.

We're gonna' take this one step at a time, and be careful and cognizant for a little while.

*deep breath*
We got this.

Welp

Goody.

They're back.
Let's see how long I can ignore them this time, eh?

Why Are You Singing?

A sad, sorrowful song, built of one part guilt, two parts helplessness, and three parts pity.
You sing it because I cannot let go. You sing it because you are aware of the black hole that is my mind, refusing to release even the smallest idea from its clutches.
You sing it because logic has failed and reason has not shifted the powerful pull.

You sing it because you want me to get better.

So why can't I?
Why won't I?

You sing it because you didn't want to get trapped here with me.
You sing it because our brief time knowing each other showed signs of wounds too deep to contend with.
You sing it because it would be a nice place if it wasn't so destructive.
You sing it because you don't know what else to do.


You sing with all your heart, hoping that some part of it will actually hit home.

Each one of you sings it because you want to appeal to the part of me that's still human.

I'm hearing the song...
But will I listen to it?

http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/410071

Or maybe I'm being too self-centered. Perhaps I'm simply a stubborn stain on the wall that refuses to clean up. A blemish that will not leave. There are no songs. No focus. Just exasperated sighs when the problem does not go away.
Either way, here I stay unwilling to rest for anyone's sake, including my own.

Fractured

Even as the sun beams and breaks the cold,
Winter's bane, the herald of warmth...
I find myself torn; cracked; fractured.
And while I am frail, I am not shattered.

Every move is one closer to being alone,
No longer walking tired together.
I have been sinking; slowing; folding.
And while I am plagued, I am not stopping.

Each day is new step forward,
But several stumbles backward.
I had been tall; excited; engaged.
And while I have tried, I am not cleansed.

Earth will always keep moving,
Though I feel it is ceasing.
I was flying; healing; living.
And while I have cried, I am not defeated.




It's been a while since I've had a nasty depressive bout, but this one's hurting pretty badly. I can't tell how much of it is the reduced SSRI intake versus my natural low for the month, or something else entirely. But I'm finding myself a bit more apathetic and lazy lately. I don't care as much, I don't want to be around people as much. And yet, I'm more lonely and struggling more every day.
I'm less certain, second-guessing my philosophies, my decisions, and who I am. How I present myself to the people I care about. What I think about my own progress. I'm more scared, less satisfied, and I genuinely try to understand the positions that it seems people are frustrated with me about. But I don't have the capacity to properly empathize with many frames of mind without attributing them to something as fallacious as blind passion.

Everyone seems to be going their own way, but new paths of others don't appear to be coinciding with mine. I am losing connections, but not gaining as many. My confidence is thinning as a result of all of this along with my lack of romance.
My chest feels tight again.
My heart hurts.

I'm just... scared, you know? I'm worried. And I can't calm myself down enough to shoo away these ethereal booguns hiding in my head. Tired, breathless, helpless, slowing down, wary of my body's weaknesses, wary that I'm not as smart as I'd like to be. That my argumentation hurts people.
This guilt might be the height of first world problems. These conflicting thoughts and ideologies are destructive all the same, and I don't know quite what to do or how to feel.

Misogyny as it Relates to Misandry and a Few Thoughts on Sexism

Sparked by an ongoing debate with a friend on the notion of "isms" existing, I've come back from my impromptu hiatus to rant and spill salt over.

In this post, I'm going to delve deep into the argument at its base, followed by a thought I had afterwards that I haven't fully processed (but am interested in teasing out).

I.

So effectively, the argument comes down to the question of whether or not "isms" against the majority can exist by definition. One side says yes, one says no.

On the side for that notion, the argumentation comes down to one of pure definition and the lack of an impact that relative size/scope has on whether or not something can meet definitional standards.

On the side against that notion, the argumentation comes down to one of a necessary systemic quality to oppression as part of the definition. Without the presence of a culturally developed and sustained power, "isms" are impossible.

Before launching into substantive ideas, it's absolutely worth noting two things:

1. I am a male. All perspectives, biases, and culturally-induced messages that have been cultivated in me are based, at least partially, on that simple fact.

2. I do not personally feel that I have ever been on the receiving end of misandristic thoughts or actions (that I'm aware of).

With that said, I believe the argument has a single, fundamental crux; that the definitions being used for those particular "isms" are different for either side.
To illustrate this, Dictionary.com's definition of "racism" is listed as such:

rac·ism

noun

1.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

And immediately, we run headlong into the problem. The definition for the noun is regarding two separate things. The first (and third) is an idea- a feeling. The second, however, is an actual structure. A system with intent, goals, methodologies, and, by definition, some level of support.

These are obviously not the same things. As such, the entire premise of the argument is silly. One side holds a position that is consistent with all available definitions, while the other side holds a position that is consistent with only a single available definition.
This does not make the argument wrong per se, but rather, it makes the argument fundamentally flawed in that its basis is in an incorrect assessment of definitions (or at least an ignorance of the complete source). The argument would have much more merit if either:

A. The definition was limited to just "a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination;" or

B. A separate word that specifically only has that definition was used.

Effectively, this argument produced a litany of unrelated arguments and analogies because of that discrepancy at its heart.
I do not see a particularly more satisfying conclusion to the argument beyond "pick a new word or else use a less deliberately narrow definition." 

This argument stretched beyond racism to include sexism and the concept of misandry vs. misogyny. 
At its base, the definition for "misogyny" is as follows:

noun

hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.

If we are to assume that misandry is simply the counterpart of this idea with men as the subject instead of women, it would read very similarly.

In this case, while there is no mention of a systemic process of oppression, I don't discount the position that it merits distinction. However, from a purely definitional standpoint, the argument falls flat in the water. A simple hatred, while it can be amplified, modified, or carried within culture does not necessitate the existence of that culture. It merely requires an overarching and generalizing attitude towards a populace.

There's not much I can say beyond this about the argument. I simply don't think that it is definitionally possible to say one exists while the other cannot.

II.

However, this conversation got me thinking about a fairly radical position on sexism, misandry, and misogyny that I had never entertained before. One that, on its face, seems ludicrous, but from a philosophical standpoint, I'm having a hard time suggesting that it is logically implausible or unreasonable.

Bearing in mind at this point that this is a position I am still processing, and it is by no means as solid as the position I hold in part I.

I am tentatively becoming very wary of the idea that society is misogynistically inclined but not misandristically inclined. Not because I think men suffer from the same kind of oppression as women, of course. The variation between the general experiences, fears, dreams, and roadblocks of men and women is too vastly different to be able to believe that at this juncture. Rather, I'm beginning to look at society through the lens of ambivalent sexism. The idea is that you have two kinds of sexism:
Benevolent; and
Hostile.

While benevolent sexism appears nice and friendly on the outside (men holding doors open specifically for women. Men being considered more worthy of managerial positions. Women being more trustworthy), their root is in a generalization about the respective gender that isn't necessarily based on anything more than circumstantial and socially-pushed evidence.
Meanwhile, hostile sexism is the more overt and cruel differentiation of the sexes. Hostile sexism is typically far more intentional and more deliberately nasty by its nature. They both, however, further the same kinds of societal assumptions with regard to gender.

To that end, I'm wondering if it is perhaps a fatal flaw to consider society sexist towards women but not men. Instead, I think it would be more appropriate to acknowledge that society has ingrained a sense of hostile sexism weighted towards women and a sense of benevolent sexism weighted towards men. From that standpoint, we recognize:

1. That men are likely the beneficiaries of more "friendly" sexism, and are thus in a more preferential position.

2. That the system is not designed with the specific intent to hurt women and benefit men. Rather, the system appears designed to reward men and women who fall into a certain specific set of characteristics, while punishing those who don't. Societally, we have come to "value" many of the things that are designed to reward men for fitting into a stereotype more than the comparable things designed to reward women thusly. Succeeding in your career is designed to give you some sense of fulfillment as well as the ability to lead a stable and independent life. Succeeding in raising a family, however, gives you a different sense of internal joy that lacks many traditionally physiologically rewarding stimuli.

To that end, our valuation of traits, actions, and characteristics is again weighted more towards men with benevolent sexism, but that is still sexism. We're rewarded for succeeding in something we have to do to survive anyway. However, we're also punished socially, financially, and culturally when we are not meeting the correct (and arbitrary) standards of "success" in the field of, say, careers.

So, with that in mind, I would agree that systemic racism against white people does not exist (at least in large amounts), I do think that systemic sexism against men is just as rampant as it is against women. The key difference being that it's more weighted towards benevolent sexism rather than hostile sexism.

As such, I do believe that women have it harder, but not because society is more sexist against them, but rather because the type of sexism they face more often than men is more directly problematic.
Again, this is something I've just started thinking about, so I'm not set in my ways.
I'd be interested in carrying this discussion forward further...

-
Wad

Oof

My heart was sorta' caving in on itself yesterday and this morning, so my energy levels are pretty low and my discomfort is pretty high.

As a result, I've been awful about blogging this week.


Real post tomorrow; Promise.

Chinese Finger Trap

The name means something. It connects me.
As I connect two extensions of humanity,
For a single moment.

Don't struggle. The ties become stronger.
The bond inseparable.

Don't fight. It is in acceptance of life
That we are truly free.

Relax and embrace your twin

Nothing but a memory,
Remember that this too shall pass.

Proof that we yet live,
This trial is proof too of the world's beauty.

For a single moment.
As you are connected to another's heart,
The name frightens you. It also comforts you.

Humans and Extremism

I hear a lot of superiority being touted by virtue of belonging to the "right" demographic.

People who work with their hands.
Liberally educated people.
People of each and every religion.
Protestors.
People who keep their heads down and their mouths shut.
Scientists.

Humans, by nature, see their way as the "right" way, often in the face of contrary evidence. We're not adept at accepting the possibility that we're wrong. Even those who attest a love for empirical evidence and who suggest that their position is swayed only by facts and logic- we're all prone to allow our assumptions and biases to color our willingness to approach an uncomfortable idea. Sometimes this can be as blatant as denying the validity of a claim at its face.
Sometimes, it's more subtle... Sometimes it's in a researcher defining terms in a way that inherently assumes the implausibility of other theories.

In the case of religion, we ostracize and condemn those who express new and scary positions. We rest assured that these people will be punished for all eternity.
In academia, we simply ignore them.
In politics, we talk over each others' heads, appealing to as many fallacies as we can in order to sound like we have a compelling argument.
We mock, we shun, we degrade, devalue, limit, punish, and abuse those who express a position that is "incorrect."

None of us are above this practice. Whether there is compelling evidence for or against us, we are wont to commit this transgression. It's certainly far easier than re-evaluating every position every single time someone is contrary to it for any reason.
And with good reason; if we doubted ourselves so much, we would inevitably spend all of our energy floundering about mired in uncertainty.

But I think it's distinctly possible that we've allowed ourselves to push too far to the other side of that scale- past the point of cautious humility and towards brash egotism. We're naturally pushed to reinforce each other as a group. In a cluster of 100 people, the movements of a mere 10% can cause most of the other 90% to move in some way, shape, or form. Their thoughts can spread like wildfire, and the assumption that because others are doing it, it must be right or acceptable is pervasive. So, in every movement, cultural, religious, scientific, rigorous, casual- we're always trying to make sure we're in a position of stability within the group. This hyper-self-awareness lends to choices being made first and foremost with the group in mind, rather than the individual. Collect a large enough crowd, and there are suddenly enough people enacting that same behavior such that the collective becomes a rolling boulder- powerful, driven by inertia, and too big to be stopped by a single part of the rock breaking away.
A perpetual feedback loop.
The extremism encourages, rewards, and invites more extremism over and over.


Until it becomes too extreme to remain stable. When a movement gets so problematic, offensive, or destructive, a combination of chunks splintering off and large groups actively trying to stop the movement will work together to either stop the boulder or push it to disintegrate.

The method of preventing this cycle of extremism and force is to be constantly aware, not of your place in a group, but how your presence and actions affect the group; how the group affects you; and where the group is heading at any given time. Allow yourself space to be cautious, tentative, and thoughtful before committing.

My Back Hurts

Nuts to this. I'm going home to eat cake.

That's what adults do, right?

I'm mature, right?

(I looked at my bank account today and decided that I was going to buy an Oculus Rift as soon as they came out for commercial consumption. Because I'm an adult.)

Lessons Learned

Well, I'm a quitter.

I didn't even last a week before succumbing to my desire to be steeped in the flow of social information around me. Passive information bores me. Active information excites me and keeps me preoccupied.

(For a hilarious frame of reference: I went an entire week without speaking during college)
I had never really realized how dependent I was on being aware of everything that's going on around me. I knew that my mind had a penchant for analyzing everything constantly (to a worrisome degree), but it hadn't occurred to me that I would actually be incredibly uncomfortable when put into a position where I had to give that up.

I intend to give the experiment another go when I'm in a more stable place- somewhere devoid of ulcers preferably. =P
Beyond that, however, I'm unsure if this is a dependency or an addiction I'm allowing to take control of me. We all have our coping mechanisms for life. Some of us just want an empty space to vent into, rather than a conversational partner.
Some of us want someone who will listen, without speaking.
Some of us want someone who will listen and respond.
Some of us want advice.
Some of us want a swift kick in the ass.
Some of us escape.
Some of us ignore our problems.
Some of us take solace in knowing the situations of others.
Some of us just want to address the problem as quickly as possible and then walk away from it.
Some of us just need to be alone.

Everyone's coping mechanisms are a little different, and it seems that I cope by having a steady stream of social information at my fingertips. I expect there are people who would see this as either creepy or ludicrous or both. In the same way that I would see ignoring your problems as irresponsible.

You can't help everyone. Only the people who ask it of you and yourself.
To feel obligated towards every other friend that you should ensure their well-being without any prompt? It is unsustainable, even if it's the nicest thing you can do. "Nice" may not always translate to "practical" or "realistic."
It is perhaps time to stop seeking problems to solve, and rather, focus on addressing problems only as they arrive. Unfortunately, I've been coping for so long by trying to help others with their problems that I don't know what to supplement my emotional energy with otherwise...

All I know is that it has been a nasty week, and I'm the only one who will help me unless I ask specifically for help. So, I have to muster up the energy to snap my brain out of its fugue, so that I can act and continue growing. I'm certainly not going to help anyone or anything by shutting down and recoiling (as tantalizing a prospect as that might be sometimes).

Time to collect my wits about me, and start moving again.

Day 4: Knowledge Glutton

So, I'm starting to figure out more about my "obsessive" nature. As I may have mentioned, the depression really sapped a lot of my mental energy, and without it to weigh me down, it turns out I get anxious and over-think an inordinate amount.

I haven't quite determined if "obsessive" is the right word for it, since I don't much act on those obsessions. However, if something happens to make me curious, I'll go pretty far out of my way to find enough information to stave that curiosity. Sometimes that's as simple as scrolling through a couple months worth of social media posts by a friend I haven't talked to in a while.

Sometimes, it's as convoluted as finding someone's tumblr through a series of mutual contacts in order to see if they said anything negative about me on a particular day.
I get paranoid and overworried about what others think of me, which is why "obsession" seems like an accurate term to use for it. Once an idea sticks to my mind, it takes a great deal of energy to loosen its grip. Typically, I just wind up mulling over it for a day, a week, a month, however long. I can function, and I try not to let that anxiety directly influence my actions, but the exact nature of it all still eludes me a bit.

My initial suspicion is that it is an anxiety-disorder-related symptom, however that's speculation at best. I'm growing more confident that it is the root of this symptom which is causing my stomach lining to wither away to a sheet of rice paper, and to that end, it's becoming more clear that I need to find an adequate way to address the concern.

Unfortunately, I'm still discovering and documenting the side-effects I've picked up from the SSRI, which has been a relatively great success for me. Among them, tinnitus, tremors, light-headedness, and exhaustion. Swapping SSRIs would be an arduous process for statistically unlikely gains. With that in mind, the idea of adding another medication to the mix sounds... incredibly short-sighted and risky. Not to say it is certainly a bad decision, but I do think it's liable to cause far more problems than it will solve. With that in mind, I can try lowering my current dosage in order to gauge the effects it has on my symptoms and the depression, and I can try to employ manual techniques for controlling anxiety and paranoia. I've already begun using a few, such as this no-Facebook experiment. However, their efficacy is temporary at best and questionable at worst.

Still, I feel like I have to do something. I've begun to feel distinctly as though I must be creepy lately. Whether or not there are many other people who see me as such remains to be seen. I just can't stop paying attention to what's going on around me and analyzing it constantly. It's not something I want to do or choose to do- just something that my brain does if it's not absolutely engrossed in something else. I can't help but have so much I want to know about others' situations and opinions. I just want to be as informed as I possibly can be.

That's not an excuse of my behavior. Merely an explanation. It may stem from a trust issue. It may stem from anxiety. I don't fully know, but this is my attempt to sort my mind out on the matter so that I can actually work to become a better person.
That's really all I can do, right?

Day 3: Creating Closure

Often in life, we're afforded scarce information with which to operate. Many times, this comes as a result of people who are (or would be) important to us who do not provide explanations for their behavior.

We are not technically obligated to provide closure to anyone in the same way that we're not technically obligated not to be a total assclown to others. However, it's a respectful practice to treat others as you believe they would like to be treated (within reason). The sad truth is that we're not usually capable of empathizing with viewpoints that are highly contrary to our own. In the case of human and social interaction, this is represented often in argumentation, one-sided romances, confrontations, and other such polarizing issues. This gives us the propensity to totally miss (or misunderstand) the emotions being felt by those around us if they don't align with our expectations or desires. When we don't understand the pain others are in as a result of our behavior, we don't try to correct the behavior or apologize for the hurt we cause.

It is a deliberate and an agonizing step to think about the pain you may be inflicting with your actions. It does not reflect positively on you, and it may even bring to the surface old wounds and forgotten troubles.

So why am I such a staunch supporter of providing closure and apologizing when you've wronged someone?
I rarely tread into the branch of deontological ethics, but this is a case where I do.
I believe humans deserve certain rights regardless of circumstances. To deny someone these rights would only be possible if you were willing to face consequences.
I believe that one of these rights is the truth (if someone wants it). An unadulterated and unabridged reflection of reality, so that we can all be as informed as possible. Some people don't want this truth, which is perfectly fine. Some people select which truths they care about. Some just want validation regardless of truth. Some want truth regardless of consequences. I don't find it acceptable to withhold truth from anyone who seeks it, despite the damage it may cause, and despite the discomfort that may be felt in the conversation.


However, what I feel humans are owed is irrelevant. People are wont to do as they please provided they break no laws. The only consequences felt will be those of their own conscience in the event that they're bothered by their own actions. Otherwise? The pain you feel is negligible.

To that end, we most design ways to cope with our limited availability of information. We must create closure for ourselves. This is neither an easy task, nor one we should have to be expected to perform. It is, instead, a necessary task that we must perform in order to survive with our sanity in tact. It's likely that you are not exactly like me; I do not deal with a lack of closure well. In any capacity. I love having information- I love knowing the ins and outs of situations. I feel incomplete without being adequately informed. You may fare better. You may fare worse.
But I would say it's probably likely that you enjoy honest closure.

So, create your own. If someone is unwilling to provide you the truth, then you are at liberty to supplant your own truth to the situation (within reason).
You have a fight with your best friend and they won't tell you what was bothering them?
Turns out they had been bitten by a snake that day.

Someone close to you drops communication altogether?
Diamond smuggler caught and killed for their transgressions. You're better off without them.

Someone breaks up with you suddenly and with no apparent cause?
They left to pursue a life of pedophilia, but understandably couldn't tell you, since you'd get them arrested.


I'm exaggerating greatly the extent to which its healthy to assume negative traits of others. It's not healthy. People are complex creatures who have reasons for everything they do.
But sometimes those reasons are actualfacts selfish and thoughtless. When they're not willing to tell you the reason(s), it's because you're not important enough to them for the truth, which is itself selfish and thoughtless.
One thing that helps us to move on from a situation is to see the worst in what we've left behind, even if it's not necessarily true. Again, this isn't a healthy tactic to employ all the time, but it can be very effective, and sometimes you are given no other choice. Some people cannot let a story go without closure. The alternative to a closure that makes you feel good (true or false) is one that makes you feel worse (whether true or false). If you are refused the truth, then you might as well make yourself feel better.

The guy that left you while you were out of the country, but continued to talk to you like you were still together? He was actually a callous asshat who didn't realize the damage he was causing.

The girl who asked you out to drinks as a way to get you to pick her up from a bad date? She was actually a selfish user.

The guy who convinced you that he had moved on from you so quickly to the point that he had already gotten engaged with another woman? The guy who did that just to see what would happen? He was actually a completely oblivious and morally vacuous heap of trash.

No one has the right to hurt you and not tell you why if they were close to you.
Demand the truth from them. If they refuse you, create an applicable truth that will make you feel better. (Just don't act on that truth. That can land you in legal and moral hot water)

To clarify, I want to make sure I'm not suggesting it's acceptable to demand explanations of behavior from people you barely know or just met; but someone who's been a relatively significant part of your life to that point; someone who would have been likely to consider you a friend or more. When we don't offer the truth and closure to these people, we're truly being the worst friends possible.

It's a complicated issue, and I don't mean to make it sound quite so black-and-white/simple. But I do think all people should be able to expect honesty as an innate right if they desire it.