So, two and a half years ago, I made an April Fools Day post where I congratulated myself for getting into grad school. It was my most "liked" post ever, for whatever that's worth. It was a total lie. I find myself quickly approaching April 1st again, but I've never been one to make the same joke twice in a row, so instead we'll go another route.
As of March 25, 2015, I was not accepted into NYU's graduate program. This marks my second attempt at grad school, although in reality it was the first serious attempt.
My entire life, I've been able to kick back and coast through life. Even for much of my time at Transy. This was how I approached University of Washington's critical theory program. It didn't work. Two and a half years down the road, when I decided it was time to try again, I went for something I was passionate about; something I actually love and want to make a living from.
It was with that fervor that I wrote, edited, and rewrote personal statements, critiques, and summaries of my accomplishments in the field. I put in real work, something I seldom do. I did it because I genuinely wanted to go learn at NYU. Their program has a breadth and depth like no other program of the dozens I looked at. They're ahead of the curve, looking to study games, not just to design them, but to understand them as cultural artifacts like all media in this day and age. They see something different about games where most see it as a source of entertainment, period.
Despite my zest, I wasn't even a contender. I often wonder just how many people there are who do all the things I do, but better. How many people are there that are simply superior versions of me? Smarter, kinder, funnier, more driven, more experienced, more realistic, more pragmatic, gentler, wiser, happier...
On the one hand, a testament to how low on the intellectual totem pole I am; on the other, a testament to how much more I can grow.
Still, it is undeniably sad to have taken a long break after undergrad to get my head on straight (that... may not have worked either), only to have my efforts prove fruitless for another year.
I do sincerely appreciate and thank everyone who believed in me and pushed me to meet this challenge head on. Maybe next time I won't let you (or myself) down.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
The Purpose of an Analogy
This one is just an exercise for me. I use analogies so often, and with fair frequency people come back and say, "but A isn't B!" making me think they've completely missed the point. It occurred to me that describing the point of an analogy in such a way as to explain why A doesn't have to equal B necessarily is actually quite difficult, so I wanted to try it out.
At its heart, an analogy is the comparison of two unlike things. But that alone doesn't really help us out much. Why compare two unlike things when there are plenty of similar things to compare?
Well, a comparison of two unlike things gives you a new perspective in a conversation; a fresh way to view the other person's point that might not be couched in all the same volatile rhetoric or implications that the originating argument might have. They don't have to be the same thing for a particular facet of them to be comparable, and I think there might even be a decent way to explain this with the abstract example we started with (or at least a very similar example):
"B is not C. The two are not equal- this is understood. However, the two share a number of characteristics that we can point to, at least one of which is the latter phoneme in its pronunciation: 'ee.'" Despite being fundamentally different from each other, the two can be compared in such a way that they have a meaningful connection. (Alright, so them ending in the same sound might not be super meaningful, but it's an abstract example. It's probably meaningful to poets or linguists)
A less abstract comparison that I used earlier today is the comparison of unions to welfare (or other social safety nets). These are fundamentally different institutions that have different goals, different structures, different politics, and get their power through different means. However, the two rely on a similar root principle: making conditions better for people who, individually/alone, do not have the power to demand or obtain those better conditions.
An analogy intends to compare an aspect of two things for which the context may be similar, or the intent may be similar, or the consequences may be similar. It is an attempt to find philosophical consistency in the how/why of the world. It's incredibly important to be clear about which similarity you're looking to examine, or else invite your rhetorical opponent to scrutinize the comparison as a 1:1 comparison (hence the counter, "A isn't B!")
The big problem, as I see it, with analogies is that they're a social scientist's source of stress. Analogies attempt to take two things that correlate and suggest that there's a reason they correlate using logic rather than pure statistics. Realistically, the only good reason we use analogies rather than hard statistics is that it's much easier for a brain to draw those connections than it is for a person/group to collect enough meaningful statistics to prove (or show great evidence towards) causation/meaningful correlation.
I personally love analogies. I think they capture and utilize one of the more interesting aspects of human intelligence/reasoning, but it's undeniable that they provide shaky evidence and are argumentatively non-robust. They rely on the human ability to make meaningful connections based on contextual similarities and then assigning relative merit to those specific similarities as compared to the differences of two things. (ie, the important thing about comparing unions to welfare is that they're a net good for society and that the methodology by which they obtain that net good is similar, even though they're otherwise super different.)
Maybe I'm totally off base? I dunno', it was a fascinating experiment to try to break down why I use analogies at least.
This was an extremely abstract post, so I apologize for what I now look back and realize is a rather complicated jumble of words and ideas.
At its heart, an analogy is the comparison of two unlike things. But that alone doesn't really help us out much. Why compare two unlike things when there are plenty of similar things to compare?
Well, a comparison of two unlike things gives you a new perspective in a conversation; a fresh way to view the other person's point that might not be couched in all the same volatile rhetoric or implications that the originating argument might have. They don't have to be the same thing for a particular facet of them to be comparable, and I think there might even be a decent way to explain this with the abstract example we started with (or at least a very similar example):
"B is not C. The two are not equal- this is understood. However, the two share a number of characteristics that we can point to, at least one of which is the latter phoneme in its pronunciation: 'ee.'" Despite being fundamentally different from each other, the two can be compared in such a way that they have a meaningful connection. (Alright, so them ending in the same sound might not be super meaningful, but it's an abstract example. It's probably meaningful to poets or linguists)
A less abstract comparison that I used earlier today is the comparison of unions to welfare (or other social safety nets). These are fundamentally different institutions that have different goals, different structures, different politics, and get their power through different means. However, the two rely on a similar root principle: making conditions better for people who, individually/alone, do not have the power to demand or obtain those better conditions.
An analogy intends to compare an aspect of two things for which the context may be similar, or the intent may be similar, or the consequences may be similar. It is an attempt to find philosophical consistency in the how/why of the world. It's incredibly important to be clear about which similarity you're looking to examine, or else invite your rhetorical opponent to scrutinize the comparison as a 1:1 comparison (hence the counter, "A isn't B!")
The big problem, as I see it, with analogies is that they're a social scientist's source of stress. Analogies attempt to take two things that correlate and suggest that there's a reason they correlate using logic rather than pure statistics. Realistically, the only good reason we use analogies rather than hard statistics is that it's much easier for a brain to draw those connections than it is for a person/group to collect enough meaningful statistics to prove (or show great evidence towards) causation/meaningful correlation.
I personally love analogies. I think they capture and utilize one of the more interesting aspects of human intelligence/reasoning, but it's undeniable that they provide shaky evidence and are argumentatively non-robust. They rely on the human ability to make meaningful connections based on contextual similarities and then assigning relative merit to those specific similarities as compared to the differences of two things. (ie, the important thing about comparing unions to welfare is that they're a net good for society and that the methodology by which they obtain that net good is similar, even though they're otherwise super different.)
Maybe I'm totally off base? I dunno', it was a fascinating experiment to try to break down why I use analogies at least.
This was an extremely abstract post, so I apologize for what I now look back and realize is a rather complicated jumble of words and ideas.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
What is "Privilege"?
So, I think I'm finally ready to give this issue a go. It's a complicated one with no small amount of vitriol on both sides of the proverbial field (and I will address why there shouldn't be sides). People are angry at each other, and there are certain things no one wants to admit, partially because there's so much misunderstanding in this topic. So, let's get started.
I wanna' break it down to a thorough, succinct definition.
The word basically amounts to "statistically significant weighting of odds for life circumstances that contribute towards the betterment of life in a traditional sense based on birth context and current social circumstances." But, that's an enormous mouthful. So, it might help to take that chunk-by-chunk.
Privilege is impacted by the way we're born and our current social standing. eg, your race, gender, gender identity, height (even how symmetrical your face is); and your wealth, your religion, your friends, your location. Pretty much everything. The first question you might have (depending on how much sociology/psychology you've studied) is how on earth everything like that matters?
Power. Human society is one big power play, and holding influence or power is a matter of having support- financial, structural, population, etc. If you have the law behind you, or if you have a buncha' money, or if you have the support of crowds of people, you tend to get what you want. Now, because all of those things are human constructs, they're pushed and pulled by factors that humans perceive to be important. How tall you are, for example, is something that is objectively hilariously unimportant. You can reach the top of the fridge easier. The sum total of your capabilities over any other average human being is replaceable by a few chunks of wood nailed together.
So why, then, are tall people happier and richer than their vertically challenged counterparts? That makes no biological sense taken alone. However, it makes a bit more sense when you factor in evolution. Tall people would have had a number of advantages in a more primal state of humanity: speed, flexibility, visibility, and yes- the ability to retrieve things from greater heights, like fruit. Being tall was an evolutionary advantage. Enough of one that societies still prize taller people socially. We trust them more, admire them more, place higher value on their existence as a whole. Not by extraordinary amounts, mind you. Just enough to tip some scales. This effect also feeds into itself as a positive feedback loop; we expect more of taller people, and those expectations go on to color their decisions. Again, not an extraordinary amount alone. But a statistically significant amount.
This same thing applies to many other traits for humans, and far and away, we find that people with success are almost always people who have a certain set of traits from a list. You're more likely to be successful if you're taller, male, white, born affluent, born to a good family, born mentally healthy, physically healthy, cisgendered, no male-pattern-baldness, skinny, married, Christian, etc. Alright, so we've covered where it starts. What do I mean by statistical advantages?
Well, the same thing I hinted at above with tall people. You're more likely to be hired for a job if you're male than female or white than black even if you have identical qualifications. It's not a guarantee, but it's a pretty substantial and statistically significant difference.
How substantial you might ask? Well, this study suggests that white felons were more likely to receive job callbacks than black non-felons with the same experience/education. When comparing non-felons, whites were more than twice as likely to receive a callback. That's fairly substantial. Noting with this study as well, this process is subject to our negative views of people as they compare to the "standard" of society. In this case, women are viewed as less competent at math than men despite equivalent education, experience, and qualifications. So that raises the question, what's the standard? The standard is the generic Joe Everyman that our society has been crafted for. A white, land owning, male. Here's where I'm sure I'll start losing people. Unfortunately, straight, white men (please note that I am definitely one of those) in general.
Why does that demographic shy away from this idea so much? There's a few reasons, but mostly it's because people in this country specifically don't like feeling like they didn't earn what they have. We go to great lengths to assure ourselves that any successes we have are because of something inherent about us. We worked hard and we're smart.
And that's partially true. The person born with the most perfect luck ever- the most privileged person could still wind up a total failure with no money, drowning in cheap booze. Similarly, people from all walks of life can rise to attain the traditional American idea of success. However, it's undeniable how skewed the actual statistics are for millionaires, billionaires, executives, CEOs, presidents, congressmen; people with power in this country. They're mostly white males.
I'll take this opportunity to stress that privilege is not a word meant to cast blame. It is a descriptive word. Taken at its face value, all persons have privilege of various kinds. This idea applies to literally everyone with the exception of those who died before being able to integrate into their family or society at large.
With that in mind, I think the best goal for the idea of privilege is to frame societal inequality in a way that involves everyone. As it stands, even a well-meaning person who acknowledges racism can simply say "well, I'm not racist, so this whole thing doesn't involve me." Thus, distancing themselves from the conversation and any ability to create meaningful change.
To the extent that it applies to everyone, by default, "privilege" brings even people at the "top of the food chain" into the discussion as well. While many would suggest the word is blame-oriented, I would say it's not really throwing anyone under a bus for the same reason that it wouldn't be throwing America under a bus to suggest that our goods and services are, by healthy majority, produced in what amounts to slave labor conditions.
It's perhaps an uncomfortable truth, but either an undeniable truth or the world's greatest coincidence.
Americans as a whole did not get to choose under what conditions our products were made, but we definitely receive the benefit of them, whether we like to accept that fact or not. The only way to rectify the problem is to acknowledge that we're complicit in it, even if we didn't actively choose for it to happen. It's a problem that is specifically set up to benefit us.
And that's what this comes down to. We have systemic inequality that virtually none of us actively chose or continues to choose. However, many of us benefit from it daily, usually without even realizing it. That's not our fault, per se. However, once we recognize it, I do think it's our responsibility to look for ways to push back against the systems in which it occurs. To that end, privilege, to me, is a word that signifies the sum total of my good fortune and reminds me that others cannot have it through no fault of their own. That's not a system I want to live in, so it's my obligation to try to change it as someone who sits pretty high up on that spectrum.
I often see arguments against the idea of privilege because there exist poor, white males. I see that as a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Take, for example, a casino where you walk in with your black friend. You two go up to any given table and the dealer tells you the odds of winning before you play. For some reason, almost every game gives you better odds than your friend. Sometimes they're pretty close, but usually, you have far better odds of winning than he does. You won't win every game. Your friend may very well win all of them, but it's statistically less likely than you winning all of them. Taken as a whole phenomenon, however, it's much more likely that you'll win most, and your friend wins far fewer.
That's single-issue privilege. Black vs. white.
Now, of course, because privilege is all-encompassing, it does take poverty into account; and the people who crafted the system over generations wanted impoverished people to have less power and less opportunity, so there's a give and take for anyone who fits into multiple categories like that. Your rich, black friend will actually probably have better odds than you, a poor white person. However, because the system is set up so that fewer black people succeed statistically, it's already an unlikely situation to be presented with, and because it's a positive feedback loop, fewer black people will come out ahead over time, and more white people will, thus keeping the balance of power permanently weighted improperly.
See, I'm straight, white, male, and middle-class, but I also have a mental disorder, so I'm winning on most levels, but then I take X steps backwards because of that last trait. It's a spectrum that everyone fits onto. It just happens that it's a spectrum of societal benefits, and the benefits are aggregated heavily towards just a few very specific traits. Namely, the ones that fit the "standard" for our country. Straight, white, male, tall, land owning, physically able, cis, mentally healthy, skinny, traditionally attractive, etc. And this is largely how it's been in most cultures throughout most of time, though things have always shifted just a bit based on culture; based on what people perceived as making another person trustworthy, powerful, respectable, and so on.
So, you fit into the spectrum of privilege. You're almost certainly not at the tippy top, but if you're reading this, you're probably pretty high up. But what does that mean? Not much except that you have, in addition to whatever hard work/effort you add to your own life, a great deal of systemic luck. Other than that? It's meaningless. It's a descriptive term, meant to represent the sum total of your individual birth circumstances and social contexts that make up who you are and how you're viewed in our culture at any given time.
Having privilege does not mean that your opinion is worth less than anyone else's or that your experiences are incorrect or are not valuable. Having privilege does not mean that your life is without turmoil, strife, repercussions, unfortunate occurrences, or anything else like that. However, it is important to be aware of the benefits one receives from this system of luck. It is important to be reminded of how much context matters, particularly when you're trying to empathize with other human beings. Not every unemployed person is a slacker. Statistically, they might even just be unemployed because of the skin color they were born with.
Everyone has different considerations, worthy of examination. The statistics are meaningful though, and that's what privilege is; a statistically significant advantage. Nothing more. Nothing less.
I wanna' break it down to a thorough, succinct definition.
The word basically amounts to "statistically significant weighting of odds for life circumstances that contribute towards the betterment of life in a traditional sense based on birth context and current social circumstances." But, that's an enormous mouthful. So, it might help to take that chunk-by-chunk.
Privilege is impacted by the way we're born and our current social standing. eg, your race, gender, gender identity, height (even how symmetrical your face is); and your wealth, your religion, your friends, your location. Pretty much everything. The first question you might have (depending on how much sociology/psychology you've studied) is how on earth everything like that matters?
Power. Human society is one big power play, and holding influence or power is a matter of having support- financial, structural, population, etc. If you have the law behind you, or if you have a buncha' money, or if you have the support of crowds of people, you tend to get what you want. Now, because all of those things are human constructs, they're pushed and pulled by factors that humans perceive to be important. How tall you are, for example, is something that is objectively hilariously unimportant. You can reach the top of the fridge easier. The sum total of your capabilities over any other average human being is replaceable by a few chunks of wood nailed together.
So why, then, are tall people happier and richer than their vertically challenged counterparts? That makes no biological sense taken alone. However, it makes a bit more sense when you factor in evolution. Tall people would have had a number of advantages in a more primal state of humanity: speed, flexibility, visibility, and yes- the ability to retrieve things from greater heights, like fruit. Being tall was an evolutionary advantage. Enough of one that societies still prize taller people socially. We trust them more, admire them more, place higher value on their existence as a whole. Not by extraordinary amounts, mind you. Just enough to tip some scales. This effect also feeds into itself as a positive feedback loop; we expect more of taller people, and those expectations go on to color their decisions. Again, not an extraordinary amount alone. But a statistically significant amount.
This same thing applies to many other traits for humans, and far and away, we find that people with success are almost always people who have a certain set of traits from a list. You're more likely to be successful if you're taller, male, white, born affluent, born to a good family, born mentally healthy, physically healthy, cisgendered, no male-pattern-baldness, skinny, married, Christian, etc. Alright, so we've covered where it starts. What do I mean by statistical advantages?
Well, the same thing I hinted at above with tall people. You're more likely to be hired for a job if you're male than female or white than black even if you have identical qualifications. It's not a guarantee, but it's a pretty substantial and statistically significant difference.
How substantial you might ask? Well, this study suggests that white felons were more likely to receive job callbacks than black non-felons with the same experience/education. When comparing non-felons, whites were more than twice as likely to receive a callback. That's fairly substantial. Noting with this study as well, this process is subject to our negative views of people as they compare to the "standard" of society. In this case, women are viewed as less competent at math than men despite equivalent education, experience, and qualifications. So that raises the question, what's the standard? The standard is the generic Joe Everyman that our society has been crafted for. A white, land owning, male. Here's where I'm sure I'll start losing people. Unfortunately, straight, white men (please note that I am definitely one of those) in general.
Why does that demographic shy away from this idea so much? There's a few reasons, but mostly it's because people in this country specifically don't like feeling like they didn't earn what they have. We go to great lengths to assure ourselves that any successes we have are because of something inherent about us. We worked hard and we're smart.
And that's partially true. The person born with the most perfect luck ever- the most privileged person could still wind up a total failure with no money, drowning in cheap booze. Similarly, people from all walks of life can rise to attain the traditional American idea of success. However, it's undeniable how skewed the actual statistics are for millionaires, billionaires, executives, CEOs, presidents, congressmen; people with power in this country. They're mostly white males.
I'll take this opportunity to stress that privilege is not a word meant to cast blame. It is a descriptive word. Taken at its face value, all persons have privilege of various kinds. This idea applies to literally everyone with the exception of those who died before being able to integrate into their family or society at large.
With that in mind, I think the best goal for the idea of privilege is to frame societal inequality in a way that involves everyone. As it stands, even a well-meaning person who acknowledges racism can simply say "well, I'm not racist, so this whole thing doesn't involve me." Thus, distancing themselves from the conversation and any ability to create meaningful change.
To the extent that it applies to everyone, by default, "privilege" brings even people at the "top of the food chain" into the discussion as well. While many would suggest the word is blame-oriented, I would say it's not really throwing anyone under a bus for the same reason that it wouldn't be throwing America under a bus to suggest that our goods and services are, by healthy majority, produced in what amounts to slave labor conditions.
It's perhaps an uncomfortable truth, but either an undeniable truth or the world's greatest coincidence.
Americans as a whole did not get to choose under what conditions our products were made, but we definitely receive the benefit of them, whether we like to accept that fact or not. The only way to rectify the problem is to acknowledge that we're complicit in it, even if we didn't actively choose for it to happen. It's a problem that is specifically set up to benefit us.
And that's what this comes down to. We have systemic inequality that virtually none of us actively chose or continues to choose. However, many of us benefit from it daily, usually without even realizing it. That's not our fault, per se. However, once we recognize it, I do think it's our responsibility to look for ways to push back against the systems in which it occurs. To that end, privilege, to me, is a word that signifies the sum total of my good fortune and reminds me that others cannot have it through no fault of their own. That's not a system I want to live in, so it's my obligation to try to change it as someone who sits pretty high up on that spectrum.
I often see arguments against the idea of privilege because there exist poor, white males. I see that as a fundamental misunderstanding of the word. Take, for example, a casino where you walk in with your black friend. You two go up to any given table and the dealer tells you the odds of winning before you play. For some reason, almost every game gives you better odds than your friend. Sometimes they're pretty close, but usually, you have far better odds of winning than he does. You won't win every game. Your friend may very well win all of them, but it's statistically less likely than you winning all of them. Taken as a whole phenomenon, however, it's much more likely that you'll win most, and your friend wins far fewer.
That's single-issue privilege. Black vs. white.
Now, of course, because privilege is all-encompassing, it does take poverty into account; and the people who crafted the system over generations wanted impoverished people to have less power and less opportunity, so there's a give and take for anyone who fits into multiple categories like that. Your rich, black friend will actually probably have better odds than you, a poor white person. However, because the system is set up so that fewer black people succeed statistically, it's already an unlikely situation to be presented with, and because it's a positive feedback loop, fewer black people will come out ahead over time, and more white people will, thus keeping the balance of power permanently weighted improperly.
See, I'm straight, white, male, and middle-class, but I also have a mental disorder, so I'm winning on most levels, but then I take X steps backwards because of that last trait. It's a spectrum that everyone fits onto. It just happens that it's a spectrum of societal benefits, and the benefits are aggregated heavily towards just a few very specific traits. Namely, the ones that fit the "standard" for our country. Straight, white, male, tall, land owning, physically able, cis, mentally healthy, skinny, traditionally attractive, etc. And this is largely how it's been in most cultures throughout most of time, though things have always shifted just a bit based on culture; based on what people perceived as making another person trustworthy, powerful, respectable, and so on.
So, you fit into the spectrum of privilege. You're almost certainly not at the tippy top, but if you're reading this, you're probably pretty high up. But what does that mean? Not much except that you have, in addition to whatever hard work/effort you add to your own life, a great deal of systemic luck. Other than that? It's meaningless. It's a descriptive term, meant to represent the sum total of your individual birth circumstances and social contexts that make up who you are and how you're viewed in our culture at any given time.
Having privilege does not mean that your opinion is worth less than anyone else's or that your experiences are incorrect or are not valuable. Having privilege does not mean that your life is without turmoil, strife, repercussions, unfortunate occurrences, or anything else like that. However, it is important to be aware of the benefits one receives from this system of luck. It is important to be reminded of how much context matters, particularly when you're trying to empathize with other human beings. Not every unemployed person is a slacker. Statistically, they might even just be unemployed because of the skin color they were born with.
Everyone has different considerations, worthy of examination. The statistics are meaningful though, and that's what privilege is; a statistically significant advantage. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Love and Learning
It's been a bit of time, and I've been thinking about the topic of love a lot lately. Both for personal reasons and philosophical. I think it's important to reflect on your past romantic endeavors (and really any kind of endeavor) and remind yourself of the things you gained, the lessons you learned, and the problems you faced. I wanted to catalog one major lesson from each romantic pursuit.
I learned a lot outside of relationships too, so I'm including 5 non-relationship romantic pursuits and a respective lesson from each one. I'll list them chronologically just in case it betrays something about the progress of human learning in general.
1. Speak up. Good lesson to learn early, but if you never say something about how you feel, the other person will never know. They can't read your mind. Communicate. This goes for crushing on someone all the way through the end of the relationship.
It was elementary school through middle school, so obviously not the height of maturity, but it was still a lesson well-learned, spending five years childishly flirting with the same person, but never saying anything outright, only to find out one day that they moved on. The idea extends through all walks of life though- when you feel strongly about something, say it. You cannot forgo your emotional/mental health- it builds up and destroys you slowly.
2. Some love never goes the way you want it; you have to accept when someone can't or doesn't want to be with you.
More middle school romance. Sometimes the feelings last a lot longer, but you should consider yourself lucky to wind up with a good friend for life, even if you were looking for a partner for life.
3. Relationships are different from standard friendships. Whether you see it coming or not, you'll have expectations and they'll have expectations- all of which will deviate some from the standard friendship expectations in some regard.
High school romances are, I'm sure, awkward for most of everyone. My first relationship, she wanted something different out of a relationship than me. The expectations were new and difficult to navigate, so we both became awkward and shut things down.
4. Don't ever use another human as a means to an end.
Being lonely is no excuse for enjoying another person's affections when you only half-heartedly return them. Everyone deserves to be treated as their own end- a human being.
4.5. Don't allow another person to be your consolation prize.
This is super related to #4, but I am cheating by including two lessons in one relationship. Everyone also deserves to be treated like they're the most important person in the world to someone. If you "settle" for someone and you treat the relationship like a settlement, then there's spite, guilt, unhappiness, and jealousy already sewn into the relationship from the beginning. Everyone ought to be treated as a 1st place prize to someone. Whether you marry for passion, stability, fun, love, or whatever- make sure that you're picking that person, not begrudgingly accepting them.
I was young, dumb, and infatuated with someone who was interested in someone else. A friend saw my grief and moved closer to me. We had a lot of fun and there was a good dynamic between us, but I sabotaged it from the moment it started, since I was settling for her. (The irony is that I think, looking back on it, I would have liked her more if I'd had a clear head on)
5. Don't sacrifice your core values for your partner (unless you want to sacrifice them).
Sacrifice- give and take- super important, don't get me wrong. But your core values? I dated a smoker despite knowing that I couldn't stand the stuff. I put too much stock into my ability to ignore those important values in order to pursue romance. It didn't work (and I'm glad it didn't).
6. Don't wait for someone's problems to solve themselves (and don't try to fix them yourself).
The first of three failed or noncommital romantic ventures around the same time period. If they're trying to do right by you and grow/learn/fix themselves, that's one thing, but empty platitudes are cheap to hand out. Don't get caught mistaking them for actual currency. "This would be great if they weren't broken in this one huge way!" I'm sure someone has thought that about me before as I've thought it about at least one person before. It's not wise to wait for that huge problem to just... disappear. You can do it, but unless they're showing good evidence of trying to solve it, it's probably time to move on.
7. Don't forget what infatuation can make you do.
The second venture of the three. Liking someone a lot can persuade you to do stupid things. Sometimes these things are good and simply show your feelings on your sleeve. In my case, making a longish drive every weekend I was able to- just to see someone smile for a few hours. But, it's good to remember that infatuation can make you do bad stupid things as well. Just... be aware of what you're doing in the name of your heart flutters.
8. Don't forget to have fun. All the time.
The last one- a fling I very much enjoyed in its simple pursuit of fun. Don't forget in all the seriousness that is life to have fun with the one person you like being around most. Simple, unadulterated fun. The things that make you giggle, poke, and prod each other. Smile. Each and every day.
9. If one person's not in it all the way, then they're not in it.
First college relationship- if either of you isn't willing to push into the adventure, then it's not gonna' happen. Let it go until the point if/when you're both ready/willing.
10. Figure out what you can and can't live with about your partner.
Second college relationship- Learn what quirks about your partner you don't like. Which can you deal with and which can't you deal with? Are any of them core aspects of their personality that can't be changed? If so, it may be a doomed relationship. Which leads to;
10.5. Don't let it drag on.
If you've already decided to end things, don't put it off. It's disrespectful, hurtful, and immature. Again, I'm cheating and putting two lessons for one relationship. Come at me!
11. Don't allow another person to be your consolation prize.
Fuck, why did I have to learn this lesson twice? God, I'm dumb and terrible sometimes.
12. Love is a choice.
My most recent relationship. I've seen this idea tossed around a bit, and I think it really hits its mark. Love is the choice to forgive. Love is the choice to hear and be heard. Love is the choice to share the bad times together in an effort to address them as a team. Love is the choice to compromise- the choice to hear what you do that bothers them and then fix it. Love is the choice to stay together, even when it's easy not to.
13. Keep yourself grounded.
Falling crazy hard for someone can be a lot of fun- it's exciting, fluttery, adrenaline-pumping, and you're thinking about the things that could be. It's fun, but keep a foot on the ground. If you don't, you pick up speed and you don't have the control to stop yourself or the control to avoid causing damage. For my part, my over-zealous nature hurt me and scared her. Keep yourself based in reality and the here-and-now. Keep a level head about your infatuation (but don't give up the spark). This may not have been a relationship, but it was definitely a lesson that I needed.
Honorable Mention: Don't let yourself be used.
No single instance, but several pseudo-romantic situations have reminded me individually that you should never give someone that kind of control over you. Don't seek approval by doing their bidding; you'll never get what you're looking for, and you'll just become a tool to be used and discarded. You're more than that. Everyone is more than that.
There are a hundred more lessons I learned, but I tried to keep everything to one core theme. Just trying to get some thoughts out there, you know? Maybe it'll help someone else one day.
I learned a lot outside of relationships too, so I'm including 5 non-relationship romantic pursuits and a respective lesson from each one. I'll list them chronologically just in case it betrays something about the progress of human learning in general.
1. Speak up. Good lesson to learn early, but if you never say something about how you feel, the other person will never know. They can't read your mind. Communicate. This goes for crushing on someone all the way through the end of the relationship.
It was elementary school through middle school, so obviously not the height of maturity, but it was still a lesson well-learned, spending five years childishly flirting with the same person, but never saying anything outright, only to find out one day that they moved on. The idea extends through all walks of life though- when you feel strongly about something, say it. You cannot forgo your emotional/mental health- it builds up and destroys you slowly.
2. Some love never goes the way you want it; you have to accept when someone can't or doesn't want to be with you.
More middle school romance. Sometimes the feelings last a lot longer, but you should consider yourself lucky to wind up with a good friend for life, even if you were looking for a partner for life.
3. Relationships are different from standard friendships. Whether you see it coming or not, you'll have expectations and they'll have expectations- all of which will deviate some from the standard friendship expectations in some regard.
High school romances are, I'm sure, awkward for most of everyone. My first relationship, she wanted something different out of a relationship than me. The expectations were new and difficult to navigate, so we both became awkward and shut things down.
4. Don't ever use another human as a means to an end.
Being lonely is no excuse for enjoying another person's affections when you only half-heartedly return them. Everyone deserves to be treated as their own end- a human being.
4.5. Don't allow another person to be your consolation prize.
This is super related to #4, but I am cheating by including two lessons in one relationship. Everyone also deserves to be treated like they're the most important person in the world to someone. If you "settle" for someone and you treat the relationship like a settlement, then there's spite, guilt, unhappiness, and jealousy already sewn into the relationship from the beginning. Everyone ought to be treated as a 1st place prize to someone. Whether you marry for passion, stability, fun, love, or whatever- make sure that you're picking that person, not begrudgingly accepting them.
I was young, dumb, and infatuated with someone who was interested in someone else. A friend saw my grief and moved closer to me. We had a lot of fun and there was a good dynamic between us, but I sabotaged it from the moment it started, since I was settling for her. (The irony is that I think, looking back on it, I would have liked her more if I'd had a clear head on)
5. Don't sacrifice your core values for your partner (unless you want to sacrifice them).
Sacrifice- give and take- super important, don't get me wrong. But your core values? I dated a smoker despite knowing that I couldn't stand the stuff. I put too much stock into my ability to ignore those important values in order to pursue romance. It didn't work (and I'm glad it didn't).
6. Don't wait for someone's problems to solve themselves (and don't try to fix them yourself).
The first of three failed or noncommital romantic ventures around the same time period. If they're trying to do right by you and grow/learn/fix themselves, that's one thing, but empty platitudes are cheap to hand out. Don't get caught mistaking them for actual currency. "This would be great if they weren't broken in this one huge way!" I'm sure someone has thought that about me before as I've thought it about at least one person before. It's not wise to wait for that huge problem to just... disappear. You can do it, but unless they're showing good evidence of trying to solve it, it's probably time to move on.
7. Don't forget what infatuation can make you do.
The second venture of the three. Liking someone a lot can persuade you to do stupid things. Sometimes these things are good and simply show your feelings on your sleeve. In my case, making a longish drive every weekend I was able to- just to see someone smile for a few hours. But, it's good to remember that infatuation can make you do bad stupid things as well. Just... be aware of what you're doing in the name of your heart flutters.
8. Don't forget to have fun. All the time.
The last one- a fling I very much enjoyed in its simple pursuit of fun. Don't forget in all the seriousness that is life to have fun with the one person you like being around most. Simple, unadulterated fun. The things that make you giggle, poke, and prod each other. Smile. Each and every day.
9. If one person's not in it all the way, then they're not in it.
First college relationship- if either of you isn't willing to push into the adventure, then it's not gonna' happen. Let it go until the point if/when you're both ready/willing.
10. Figure out what you can and can't live with about your partner.
Second college relationship- Learn what quirks about your partner you don't like. Which can you deal with and which can't you deal with? Are any of them core aspects of their personality that can't be changed? If so, it may be a doomed relationship. Which leads to;
10.5. Don't let it drag on.
If you've already decided to end things, don't put it off. It's disrespectful, hurtful, and immature. Again, I'm cheating and putting two lessons for one relationship. Come at me!
11. Don't allow another person to be your consolation prize.
Fuck, why did I have to learn this lesson twice? God, I'm dumb and terrible sometimes.
12. Love is a choice.
My most recent relationship. I've seen this idea tossed around a bit, and I think it really hits its mark. Love is the choice to forgive. Love is the choice to hear and be heard. Love is the choice to share the bad times together in an effort to address them as a team. Love is the choice to compromise- the choice to hear what you do that bothers them and then fix it. Love is the choice to stay together, even when it's easy not to.
13. Keep yourself grounded.
Falling crazy hard for someone can be a lot of fun- it's exciting, fluttery, adrenaline-pumping, and you're thinking about the things that could be. It's fun, but keep a foot on the ground. If you don't, you pick up speed and you don't have the control to stop yourself or the control to avoid causing damage. For my part, my over-zealous nature hurt me and scared her. Keep yourself based in reality and the here-and-now. Keep a level head about your infatuation (but don't give up the spark). This may not have been a relationship, but it was definitely a lesson that I needed.
Honorable Mention: Don't let yourself be used.
No single instance, but several pseudo-romantic situations have reminded me individually that you should never give someone that kind of control over you. Don't seek approval by doing their bidding; you'll never get what you're looking for, and you'll just become a tool to be used and discarded. You're more than that. Everyone is more than that.
There are a hundred more lessons I learned, but I tried to keep everything to one core theme. Just trying to get some thoughts out there, you know? Maybe it'll help someone else one day.
ADDENDUM
I thought about it a bit, and while this was primarily a way to categorize my thoughts, it's entirely possible a few people involved in the above romantic endeavors will read this. I think for the vast majority of these cases, I did something stupid and/or hurtful to bring the relationship to an end, and I would like to stress that while I think I'm learning lessons, it shouldn't be at the expense of the happiness of others. So to anyone who has been involved with me, I do want to apologize. I'm growing, little by little, but I'm sure I've left painful marks on the history of many of you. You have always and will always deserve better than that. I hope you have found a more fitting partnership, and thank you for being an important part of my life and my growing experience.
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
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.
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.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)