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.

Day 2: First Impressions

I am almost certainly not going to last long in this experiment.

I'm a techie and an information junkie. I function via connectivity. Being pulled out from the flow of social information has left me feeling slower and more cavernous.
However, it does appear to be correlated with a reduction in anxiety still. Unclear if I'm just getting over the hump in ulcer stress or if cutting myself off socially is actually helping me decompress. To that end, I think continuing forward as is will be the wisest course of action.

I will write a blogpost daily as planned, and I'll see if reading becomes a little more feasible for me when I have fewer things to occupy my mind with.



Speaking of first impressions, they're a unique and difficult beast. You typically only get the one initial impression before an opinion about you has been rendered. This is a largely irreversible process that most people are not super spectacular at. I've never been much at first impressions, certainly.
I tend to be more of a silent observer on first meetings, speaking only after I've gained a sense of the people around me and I'm reasonably confident I won't be crossing any lines with them. I like to play my hand only after having as much information as I can expect to garner within reason.

But, there are others who are naturally quite charming.
And there are those who are not socially aware enough to realize how horribly they can come across. Everyone has their own unique level of proficiency in this (and any other) skill.

We tend to absorb the first impression we receive of someone and craft a rather elaborate set of opinions based solely on that limited amount of information. These opinions inform how we perceive future interactions with this person, which in turn shades our opinions with our pre-conceived notions. It's a self-sustaining feedback loop designed to reinforce the opinions we already hold. Difficult to break, but not impossible. Typically, it requires a significant event that makes us re-evaluate the foundations we've constructed for a person. Seeing someone we thought selfish being self-sacrificing and not saying anything about it. Watching an "asshole" run, dropping everything, to make sure a friend is okay. Hearing someone "socially inept" make a series of very witty observations that were neither forced nor clung to. Catching someone "heartless" break down and cry about a situation that is not theirs. Knowing an "egotist" who offers true and deep apologies for wrongs they've committed.
It may take extraordinary circumstances in order to so fundamentally change how we perceive someone after a first impression has been established, but it's definitely possible.

We just have to remind ourselves not to get stuck in the same pattern of thoughts, behaviors, and actions. We have to be able to surprise ourselves and others. Constantly grow and strive to be a little closer to our ideal selves every day.

Sometimes, you owe it to people to give weight to their second impression. Not everyone can make a good first impression, and it's a little immature to refuse to re-evaluate previous positions- especially in light of updated or new information. We all have the propensity to be... hasty... in our judgments. We all owe an apology somewhere along the lines for developing a negative opinion pre-maturely.
And, we all owe an apology somewhere along the lines for saying or doing something that undoubtedly left a negative first impression unintentionally.
When my contact with the outside world resumes, I can think of one such person that I owe an apology to for an unfortunate first impression that was my fault.
Perhaps speaking in terms of "owing" and "obligation" is a bit much, but it's respectful and nice to own up to our actions and take responsibility.

-
Wad

Day 1: The Reckoning

So, it became really apparent by noon today that my body is used to automatically spending my spare time on Facebook, Reddit, and a few other social sites in lesser doses.

Apparent enough that I've decided to do a daily blog entry (they might be a hair smaller? I dunno') in order to fill some of this excess time I suddenly have. I suspect if this trend continues, I'll wind up deliberately picking up some basic computer programming or something. I have no idea.

On the offset, my anxieties appear to have been reduced by some 30ish percent between yesterday and today. A number of variables could be the cause of this, however, and I'm absolutely not prepared to say that I made the "correct" decision.

Regardless, it's at least important for me to experiment with this until I can find a successful method of curbing my anxiety that doesn't also destroy my body (I'm looking at you, Buspar). To that end, I've gone a bit to the extreme side of things by distancing myself from the only active social presence I am a part of. I intend to still see individual people whenever they're interested in hanging out, but I think it's time I gave myself a break. Even if it's just to see what happens.
The inability to link myself into the social flow is... stressful, but it's also incredibly calming. For the first time in a week or so, I feel like my brain is slowing down, and not out of exhaustion, but just because I'm not over-stimulating it finally.

At this point, my vague plan is to contact my psychiatrist to set up an appointment after a few days' trial of this test. I'll be able to address a number of small(ish) side-effects of the SSRIs. I'll also be able to bring up the issue of Emotional Support Animals, which will hopefully provide the loophole I and my roommate need to own a cat despite our apartment complex not being terribly accommodating of pets normally.
At that point, we'll likely re-evaluate the potential that medication can assist with my anxiety problems. While I am on the one hand hesitant to be on a number of different medications at once, it has becoming increasingly clear that the additional mental energy afforded by my reduced depression has been funneled directly into my social anxieties.

With that in mind, I also intend to push myself towards researching for graduate school again, as well as hopefully pursuing some writing (mostly just blog stuff, but maybe a novel?) on the side.I've also got an itch to join a gym once the weather stops being objectively the worst and my stomach stops having a hole in it.

I've deleted all of my text conversations.
I've disabled Facebook.
I've disabled OKCupid.
I've disabled Reddit.
I've deleted all non-essential contacts from my phone (I have 21 contacts remaining; 4 work contacts, 5 family contacts, 2 healthcare contacts, 7 contacts who are friends/roommates that I will contact in case of emergency, my landlord, and 2 professors).
I will still respond to messages sent to me, but I will immediately delete any conversation I am a part of, nor will I ever initiate contact from my phone. If you want to talk to me through the duration of this experiment, you're going to have to supply the first foot forward.
If you don't want to talk to me through the duration of this, then I'll see you on the other side~
If you're not interested in talking to me ever, then I'm sure we'll both be worse off for the lack of connection. (Also, why are you reading my blog?)

The world is beautiful and complicated, and I know that what I'm doing may inconvenience or possibly hurt others, and for that, I do truly apologize. However, this is something that I feel I need to do for myself right now. So again, if you'd like to talk to me, please be the initiator for a little while.
My number is 859-462-0638 if you don't already have it, but you should probably identify yourself if you text me, since my contact book is super empty. =D

-
Wad

PEACE, Y'ALL!

I believe I've decided to disconnect myself from the milieu of social information for a while.

My anxiety appears to be spiking, with no sign of slowing down, causing me levels of stress that have twice correlated with the appearance of an ulcer now. Given that my anxieties are centered around interpersonal connections, it seems natural that severing myself from the flow of society may help to quell this tide.

In the meantime, I also have a number of personal issues that I need to work on in order to approach the person I'd like to be someday. I cannot pretend that simply addressing the symptoms of my problem will make the problem itself go away. And while this is a somewhat spontaneous decision, it is not one I'm making lightly. Rather, it seems I'm grasping at potential methods for reducing this crippling anxiety, even if they might service as a detriment to my life. But, I cannot know until I try, now can I?

Moreover, if the problem is indeed continuing to grow, then my presence online will only function as a party for pity- territory I've already started slipping very quickly towards. Rather than allow the people around me to struggle to try to hold me up by my various insecurities, I am opting instead to go for a full blackout. A disconnection that will hopefully urge my body and mind to slow down and re-evaluate it's current path and progress.

This is pure speculation, so I haven't a single idea if it'll work or if it may cause worse problems. At the very least, however, it will be nice to know that I'm testing new grounds again- actively trying to solve these problems. To that end, at midnight tonight, I intend to deactivate my Facebook, purge my phone of all non-essential contacts, and allow my blog to function as my sole outlet. It's possible that I'll come to regret this decision quickly, and it's possible I'll fall in love with this decision.
Who knows?

What matters right now is that I'm getting worse, my symptoms arrive through contact (or lack thereof) with people around me, but not physically present, and I'm tired of feeling like, at best, I'm a casual friend, and at worst a simple blight on those around me. This is not to suggest that I'm not potentially a blight or a friend- merely that that's how I perceive myself through my interactions with others. And I know it's not healthy.
So, perhaps this parasite will starve with the lack of contact.
Or, perhaps it will lash out like a cornered animal.

Or perhaps the effect will be far more benign than that.
I don't know. I really don't. I know I'm scared.
Scared of not getting better.

-
Wade

Story Tellin'

Spurred by a fascinating discussion last night on the merits of storytelling/world-building in media (particularly movies), I spent some time thinking about what it is that makes a tale memorable or interesting for me.

The discussion effectively boiled down to whether it was more important for a story to be told well, or for it to have a practical message being sent.

Despite the fact that I'm a pragmatist well before I'm interested in achieving the perfect theory, I'd be lying if I said I didn't have an enormous soft spot for complicated narratives that don't necessarily tell the most savory of stories. "Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable."

Stories with unpleasant messages can nevertheless be important perspectives. Stories can function to trigger our deepest emotions despite having no basis in the world that represents our day-to-day lives. I will never interact with the characters in stories personally. I will never live in the world inhabited by those characters. I will never have to confront a reality proposed by a narrative. However, they will still always make me feel things.
I may not agree with a character's actions, but I might understand why those decisions were made.
I may not personally have any interest in a cognitive or behavioral style as carried out by a fictional character, but I might still be able to learn from the unique emotions that said style imparts upon them.
I may not find a character's choices conscionable, but I might learn something new about my feelings based on the perspectives I'm witnessing.

Watchmen, the graphic novel (and later movie) represents an excellent example of a story with characters who are all on extreme ends of a spectrum, virtually unrelatable in their individual circumstances. But despite this and despite the fact that the message of the film is not a practical or joyous one, the story is nothing short of phenomenal.

I do not often find that I'm terribly put off by a movie that has no useful message to send so long as the story is fundamentally well-told (often, a well-told story has a message to send, but there are times where a good story is simply an adequate exploration of fascinating ideas). Not because the message is unimportant to me, but rather because I do not think it is the obligation of art to agree with us, but rather, to allow us to explore and feel things.

#storyrants

-
Wad