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.
Sunday, April 6, 2014
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
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.
Friday, March 28, 2014
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:
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:
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
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
noun1.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:
nounhatred, 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
Thursday, March 20, 2014
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.
As a result, I've been awful about blogging this week.
Real post tomorrow; Promise.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
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.
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.
Thursday, March 13, 2014
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
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.)
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)