This week, I've been watching a lot of movies. I don't know why. I really don't have time for it. But I've somehow made the time, (by not doing a lot of my homework coughcough.) I was watching some of the movies I'd wanted to see for a long time, but never got around to.
The first one I watched that I'll talk about is Disney's Tangled. It's a different twist on the classic fairy tale of Rapunzel. And by different twist, I mean they changed essentially everything except for her long hair and the tower. But that is certainly not a bad thing.
We find out that this Rapunzel was a princess. But then, because of some magic flower that Rapunzel's mother ate when she was pregnant, Rapunzel's hair is magical. That flower was used by a witch, and when the King took it for the Queen, the witch was angered. So she stole Rapunzel to keep herself young and raised Rapunzel as her own. But of course Rapunzel wants out. So when a random man climbs through her window and can take her away, she grabs that chance. All she wants to do is see these lights that are flown into the sky each year on her birthday.
Of course from there it turns into a fantastic adventure, with a battle between good and evil. And it was really good. I enjoyed going back to my childhood days of watching Disney princess movies.
With this though, they started moving toward the more modern mindset. Rapunzel's goal was not to find love, but to discover herself. She just happened to find love at the same time. Rapunzel herself was very independent as well. While at times she did need her trusty "knight in shining armor," she could stand on her own, and often times was the one who saved the duo's day.
Then, continuing on the Disney princess theme, I went and watched Brave.
And I loved it just as much.
Brave follows the life of a Scottish princess who just wants to be herself. However, her mother wants to make her into the perfect lady, and this causes a rift between them. Because of this rift and differing opinions, a series of events take place that *possiblespoileralert?* turn our heroine Merida's mother into a bear. It sounds weird, but it makes sense in the movie. The rest of the movie is then about Merida trying to keep her mother from being hunted while also trying to turn her back into a human.
It was really a heartwarming tale, again about a young woman trying to find herself essentially. This one did not end in a "happily-ever-after-with-a-guy," which was of course different from what I was used to with Disney princess movies. But it was still good.
Overall, this just made me excited for what's to come. If Disney is making these kinds of movies now, it sends a good message to girls, telling them to be themselves. It mixes the classic girly love of princesses with the idea that one should be themselves and that essentially girls don't need to have a guy in their life to live "happily ever after." These are the kinds of movies I would one day want my own daughters to watch.
Sunday, February 3, 2013
Sunday, January 27, 2013
2 kool 4 skool
It's that time of the year again: class registration.
It's the time counselors hate, students hate, and teachers hate. Counselors don't like those pesky students bothering them from doing whatever the heck it is they do. Students hate it because it means looking ahead to the future which is just completely asinine and why would we want to do that we have everything going just fine now can't we just do it later. Then teachers hate it because they have to take time out of teaching to explain the choices for next year, sign papers about which classes students are going to take, and somehow politely tell that one kid that he (or she) is stupid for the class they want to take.
But it has to be done! So we toil through it year after year.
And each year, we hear the same spiel each year.
TAKE AP CLASSES
And I would have no problem with that, except that they tell every student to do so.
I get it. You want to be the highest ranked in the state for AP classes taken. But you don't seem to understand what you're doing by encouraging even the dumber kids (no offense to any of you) to take these "advanced placement" classes.
The same thing is currently happening with our colleges too. Overall, we're lowering our standards, in order to make numbers look better, make kids feel better about themselves because they can take "smart kid" classes, and make parents happy that their kid doesn't look dumb as shit. But what about those kids who are smart enough to take the supposedly college level courses in their high school years?
Now, we're able to take actual college courses in our junior and senior years of high school. Middle schoolers are coming to the high school to take classes too. Wait, wait waitwaitwait. What the hell is the point of grades if you're just going to let kids skip around willy-nilly whenever they feel like? Why don't we all just do what they did in the movie "Accepted" and let kids create their own classes? Anyone feel like taking "daydreaming 101?"
But honestly, by dropping the whole level of classes, you're lowering the standards and limiting the students who want to excel. We can see this in how it's practically required now to go to a college for four years, or else you won't get a job that isn't flipping burgers. Soon a PhD is going to be basic level. And is that really what we want? Do we want our children signing away eight years of their lives, just so they can support their family? People who went to college used to be considered the brilliant. Now, if you don't go to college, you might as well buy some wife beaters and invest in a trailer, because that's all anyone expects you to amount to. I'm not saying that you will, but society will try its best to keep you there, flat on your ass in the dirt.
So what's my message? I guess it's this: Don't take AP classes. You're proud you made a GPA of 3.00 last term? Great, now how about you try taking some classes that are more appropriate for your level. By trying to equal out everyone, we're lowering so many brilliant minds who could go on to do great things. Don't let "excellence" become mediocre.
It's the time counselors hate, students hate, and teachers hate. Counselors don't like those pesky students bothering them from doing whatever the heck it is they do. Students hate it because it means looking ahead to the future which is just completely asinine and why would we want to do that we have everything going just fine now can't we just do it later. Then teachers hate it because they have to take time out of teaching to explain the choices for next year, sign papers about which classes students are going to take, and somehow politely tell that one kid that he (or she) is stupid for the class they want to take.
But it has to be done! So we toil through it year after year.
And each year, we hear the same spiel each year.
TAKE AP CLASSES
And I would have no problem with that, except that they tell every student to do so.
I get it. You want to be the highest ranked in the state for AP classes taken. But you don't seem to understand what you're doing by encouraging even the dumber kids (no offense to any of you) to take these "advanced placement" classes.
The same thing is currently happening with our colleges too. Overall, we're lowering our standards, in order to make numbers look better, make kids feel better about themselves because they can take "smart kid" classes, and make parents happy that their kid doesn't look dumb as shit. But what about those kids who are smart enough to take the supposedly college level courses in their high school years?
Now, we're able to take actual college courses in our junior and senior years of high school. Middle schoolers are coming to the high school to take classes too. Wait, wait waitwaitwait. What the hell is the point of grades if you're just going to let kids skip around willy-nilly whenever they feel like? Why don't we all just do what they did in the movie "Accepted" and let kids create their own classes? Anyone feel like taking "daydreaming 101?"
But honestly, by dropping the whole level of classes, you're lowering the standards and limiting the students who want to excel. We can see this in how it's practically required now to go to a college for four years, or else you won't get a job that isn't flipping burgers. Soon a PhD is going to be basic level. And is that really what we want? Do we want our children signing away eight years of their lives, just so they can support their family? People who went to college used to be considered the brilliant. Now, if you don't go to college, you might as well buy some wife beaters and invest in a trailer, because that's all anyone expects you to amount to. I'm not saying that you will, but society will try its best to keep you there, flat on your ass in the dirt.
So what's my message? I guess it's this: Don't take AP classes. You're proud you made a GPA of 3.00 last term? Great, now how about you try taking some classes that are more appropriate for your level. By trying to equal out everyone, we're lowering so many brilliant minds who could go on to do great things. Don't let "excellence" become mediocre.
An apple a day keeps the doctor away
But uh, you actually have to eat more than that. You know, get your protein and other daily nutrients.
Recently, in my language arts class, we've been watching a documentary called "Miss Representation." While talking about the media setting unrealistic body images for girls and women, they mentioned that 65% of women and girls in the U.S. have an eating disorder. This really made me question it. Would over half the population of the United States have an eating disorder, when womenshealth.gov also reports that as of 2007, over 60% of women in the U.S. are overweight? I kind of doubt that our entire demographic could shift within six years. And it hasn't. The Weight-control Information Network reported that in 2009-2010, 64% of women were overweight or obese.
The main questions that were brought to my mind were involving both ends of the spectrum then. What was considered an "eating disorder?" And what qualifies someone as overweight?
Firstly though, I fact checked the 65% statistic that the documentary gave me. And it was true. According to News Medical, 65% of women in the U.S. do have an eating disorder. But reading that article, you can see there are links for the words "eating disorder." Following that link, it takes you to a page titled "What is an Eating Disorder?" And according to Dr. Ananya Mandal, MD, an eating disorder can be someone eating too little or too much. Wait, so why would "Miss Representation" say that 65% of women have an eating disorder? Oh right, to make their case look better. Much of that 65% we could assume is simply eating unhealthily, such as overeating.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined overweight, saying that "Overweight and obesity are both labels for ranges of weight that are greater than what is generally considered healthy for a given height." They also state that BMI (body mass index) also helps determine someone's physical state, by using height and weight to determine their amount of body fat. While that often cannot be applied to some people, such as athletes, it is often a fairly accurate measure of a person's body fat.
So might I be interpreting these eating disorder statistics wrong? I suppose. Science Daily reported the same 65% statistic, along with an extra 10% of women who report consistent symptoms of disorders like bulimia and anorexia. So wait. What was the 65%? Overall, not much of this adds up. They also say that 67% of women are trying to lose weight. Well anyone can say that. I'm trying to lose weight, I've been skipping that bag of chips at lunch! "53% of of dieters are already at a healthy weight and are still trying to lose weight." Wait, this one doesn't say women. I know that's jumping to a huge conclusion, but it's a little suspicious. And it doesn't say it'd be unhealthy for those dieters to lose weight. You may want to be more healthy, gain more muscle, whatever. Then it says that 13% of women (I assume women anyway) smoke to lose weight. Hang on, did I miss the memo? Does this is actually a good idea? I was a little lost in all these statistics,
So I decided to go straight to the source. This 65% business came from a survey taken by Self magazine. Self magazine is a magazine for women that features tips on health, beauty, fitness, nutrition, and happiness. Now this information's starting to make more sense. Let's think for a second? Who subscribes to a fitness magazine? Healthy people who are happy with their bodies? Honestly, they're not usually the ones to do so. So looking at the actual article, something struck me as hugely disproving of this 65% statistic. "The online SELF survey garnered responses from 4,000 women ages 25 to 45..." HOLD THE PHONE. Since when is 4,000 women with only a twenty year age frame a good enough sample size to apply the statistic to the entire United States? And an online survey nonetheless, from a health magazine website?
So in conclusion, folks, I encourage you to always doubt what you are told. Though the words might be true, are they being presented in a way that is meant to imply something different? "Miss Representation" used a fact that is apparently widely accepted. But from a few simple Google searches and a little bit of reading, I'm doubting the way they presented it. And it will also make me doubt any other statistics they try to show me. They weren't lying, but they sure weren't telling the truth.
Recently, in my language arts class, we've been watching a documentary called "Miss Representation." While talking about the media setting unrealistic body images for girls and women, they mentioned that 65% of women and girls in the U.S. have an eating disorder. This really made me question it. Would over half the population of the United States have an eating disorder, when womenshealth.gov also reports that as of 2007, over 60% of women in the U.S. are overweight? I kind of doubt that our entire demographic could shift within six years. And it hasn't. The Weight-control Information Network reported that in 2009-2010, 64% of women were overweight or obese.
The main questions that were brought to my mind were involving both ends of the spectrum then. What was considered an "eating disorder?" And what qualifies someone as overweight?
Firstly though, I fact checked the 65% statistic that the documentary gave me. And it was true. According to News Medical, 65% of women in the U.S. do have an eating disorder. But reading that article, you can see there are links for the words "eating disorder." Following that link, it takes you to a page titled "What is an Eating Disorder?" And according to Dr. Ananya Mandal, MD, an eating disorder can be someone eating too little or too much. Wait, so why would "Miss Representation" say that 65% of women have an eating disorder? Oh right, to make their case look better. Much of that 65% we could assume is simply eating unhealthily, such as overeating.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention defined overweight, saying that "Overweight and obesity are both labels for ranges of weight that are greater than what is generally considered healthy for a given height." They also state that BMI (body mass index) also helps determine someone's physical state, by using height and weight to determine their amount of body fat. While that often cannot be applied to some people, such as athletes, it is often a fairly accurate measure of a person's body fat.
So might I be interpreting these eating disorder statistics wrong? I suppose. Science Daily reported the same 65% statistic, along with an extra 10% of women who report consistent symptoms of disorders like bulimia and anorexia. So wait. What was the 65%? Overall, not much of this adds up. They also say that 67% of women are trying to lose weight. Well anyone can say that. I'm trying to lose weight, I've been skipping that bag of chips at lunch! "53% of of dieters are already at a healthy weight and are still trying to lose weight." Wait, this one doesn't say women. I know that's jumping to a huge conclusion, but it's a little suspicious. And it doesn't say it'd be unhealthy for those dieters to lose weight. You may want to be more healthy, gain more muscle, whatever. Then it says that 13% of women (I assume women anyway) smoke to lose weight. Hang on, did I miss the memo? Does this is actually a good idea? I was a little lost in all these statistics,
So I decided to go straight to the source. This 65% business came from a survey taken by Self magazine. Self magazine is a magazine for women that features tips on health, beauty, fitness, nutrition, and happiness. Now this information's starting to make more sense. Let's think for a second? Who subscribes to a fitness magazine? Healthy people who are happy with their bodies? Honestly, they're not usually the ones to do so. So looking at the actual article, something struck me as hugely disproving of this 65% statistic. "The online SELF survey garnered responses from 4,000 women ages 25 to 45..." HOLD THE PHONE. Since when is 4,000 women with only a twenty year age frame a good enough sample size to apply the statistic to the entire United States? And an online survey nonetheless, from a health magazine website?
So in conclusion, folks, I encourage you to always doubt what you are told. Though the words might be true, are they being presented in a way that is meant to imply something different? "Miss Representation" used a fact that is apparently widely accepted. But from a few simple Google searches and a little bit of reading, I'm doubting the way they presented it. And it will also make me doubt any other statistics they try to show me. They weren't lying, but they sure weren't telling the truth.
Saturday, January 26, 2013
""Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings" Response" Response
Not too long ago, (just this past Sunday, to be exact,) I wrote a post titled "Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings," essentially bashing feminism. My good friend then wrote a response to it, which is a fantastic read and I would encourage you to read. However, I must offer my rebuttal. Hopefully, this post will be of a higher quality than my first one, as I was rushed and decided to be lazy and not really get any resources behind my arguments.
Let me first start by saying that I really appreciate the response. It makes a lot of good points, especially about the muted group theory.
But it implied that I based my argument around that. I did not. I simply used it as an example of how women still being preached as an oppressed group. Which they are not. (And yeah, it was really confusing. I just kinda thought it was ridiculously worded and I didn't like it... (Readers bias I guess...))
I live in America. America is a capitalist country. We revolve around money. Y'all know that. So money means a lot to us, and when we think we aren't getting our fair share of the dough, we get angry. So as women in America are essentially equal to American men, we notice a slight difference in pay. And this angers women. So most people simply jump to the conclusion that it's the difference in gender that causes the difference in pay. And essentially, they are right. But you have to look at the facts, not the bottom line.
Women are different creatures from men. We get to give birth to children, which I have heard is an amazing and awful experience. It's our joy or our burden to bear in society. Not that that's the only thing we're good for; I'm by no stretch of the imagination saying that. But we women are the only ones who can give birth to children. We are natural caretakers. And yes, time off from work is necessary. Sure, maternity leave laws are a problem in America, but remember, we're all about money. "Are you saying that simply because women are having babies they deserve to be paid less?" Goodness no, but I'm saying that's the way it works. But by paying an employee who is not showing up for work and doing any work, a company or business loses money. The economy sucks here and the last thing an employer wants to do is lose money. The government is largely out to protect the corporation, not the individual. Once again, I'm not saying it's right, but if a man took 12 weeks off to raise his child, he wouldn't be paid either. It's up to the family to decide who raises the children, and in many families, that role falls to the woman. There is nothing wrong with this. Their would be nothing wrong with a man doing it either.
Another point (somehow missed in the response) is that women work fewer hours, just in general. In this Wall Street Journal article written by Kay Hymowitz, she states that "In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers." When paid on an hourly basis, this makes a huge difference. Later on, the article says, "Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage." Again, this is their choice. (I understand there are some cases where they are not given the choice. This is by no means okay and should be considered a dangerous relationship.)
"Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it's illegal to fire someone for simply being pregnant. But it's not illegal for them to fire people for being unable to do their jobs---even though with simple adjustments women could do their job fine and with fewer health risks." I get it's not fair. But once again, America is about money. And, did you know, in Iowa, we have a law that says an employer can fire you without reason? That is besides sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability. But if your employer plain doesn't like you, they can just fire you. No reason needed. The world just isn't fair.
"... the most basic of feminism is that women--just as the quote said---are human beings." This statement makes me upset. To believe we need a movement or ideology to assert that women are human beings, I feel, just emphasizes the very resistance we, even as females, have to let go of the archaic idea that nowadays women are still not viewed as human beings. Once we stop acknowledging that a difference exists, that difference is apt to disappear. It's not guaranteed that it will, but it's much more likely. For example, you know those people who are extreme "anti-racists" or "pro-gay" or something like that? They go around saying things like, "Oh yeah, I'm friends with like fifty African-Americans/Asians/Indians/Slovaks/Antarcticans," as if firstly that they actually are, and secondly that makes them somehow a better person than those who aren't what they claim to be. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That's how it needs to be. The first thing you judge someone by should not be their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their gender. And by pointing out that a difference between them, you are only helping keep the problem around longer.
So no, feminism is not a "moot point," but I think we rely too much on it. We may argue that there are fewer women in higher positions, but how many women actually apply for those positions? And it's clearly possible to both raise a family and have a high position, as Licia Ronzulli, Italian representative at the European Parliament, shows us. She takes her now two-year-old daughter to work with her daily, and has been doing so since she was a baby. It may be society and the media sending a message to young girls that they shouldn't hold positions of power, but is there actually anything stopping them from reaching high and attaining such goals? Not really. It may be more difficult than for a man, but it is possible. Determination and qualifications is all a woman really needs nowadays.
I'll just finish by saying this: women, be proud of who you are. You are a woman, and not a man. You should take pride in this fact, but remember, you are not worth any less than a man. The only thing holding you back is yourself.
Let me first start by saying that I really appreciate the response. It makes a lot of good points, especially about the muted group theory.
But it implied that I based my argument around that. I did not. I simply used it as an example of how women still being preached as an oppressed group. Which they are not. (And yeah, it was really confusing. I just kinda thought it was ridiculously worded and I didn't like it... (Readers bias I guess...))
I live in America. America is a capitalist country. We revolve around money. Y'all know that. So money means a lot to us, and when we think we aren't getting our fair share of the dough, we get angry. So as women in America are essentially equal to American men, we notice a slight difference in pay. And this angers women. So most people simply jump to the conclusion that it's the difference in gender that causes the difference in pay. And essentially, they are right. But you have to look at the facts, not the bottom line.
Women are different creatures from men. We get to give birth to children, which I have heard is an amazing and awful experience. It's our joy or our burden to bear in society. Not that that's the only thing we're good for; I'm by no stretch of the imagination saying that. But we women are the only ones who can give birth to children. We are natural caretakers. And yes, time off from work is necessary. Sure, maternity leave laws are a problem in America, but remember, we're all about money. "Are you saying that simply because women are having babies they deserve to be paid less?" Goodness no, but I'm saying that's the way it works. But by paying an employee who is not showing up for work and doing any work, a company or business loses money. The economy sucks here and the last thing an employer wants to do is lose money. The government is largely out to protect the corporation, not the individual. Once again, I'm not saying it's right, but if a man took 12 weeks off to raise his child, he wouldn't be paid either. It's up to the family to decide who raises the children, and in many families, that role falls to the woman. There is nothing wrong with this. Their would be nothing wrong with a man doing it either.
Another point (somehow missed in the response) is that women work fewer hours, just in general. In this Wall Street Journal article written by Kay Hymowitz, she states that "In 2007, 25% of men working full-time jobs had workweeks of 41 or more hours, compared with 14% of female full-time workers." When paid on an hourly basis, this makes a huge difference. Later on, the article says, "Today, childless 20-something women do earn more than their male peers. But most are likely to cut back their hours after they have kids, giving men the hours, and income, advantage." Again, this is their choice. (I understand there are some cases where they are not given the choice. This is by no means okay and should be considered a dangerous relationship.)
"Under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, it's illegal to fire someone for simply being pregnant. But it's not illegal for them to fire people for being unable to do their jobs---even though with simple adjustments women could do their job fine and with fewer health risks." I get it's not fair. But once again, America is about money. And, did you know, in Iowa, we have a law that says an employer can fire you without reason? That is besides sex, race, color, national origin, religion, age, pregnancy or physical or mental disability. But if your employer plain doesn't like you, they can just fire you. No reason needed. The world just isn't fair.
"... the most basic of feminism is that women--just as the quote said---are human beings." This statement makes me upset. To believe we need a movement or ideology to assert that women are human beings, I feel, just emphasizes the very resistance we, even as females, have to let go of the archaic idea that nowadays women are still not viewed as human beings. Once we stop acknowledging that a difference exists, that difference is apt to disappear. It's not guaranteed that it will, but it's much more likely. For example, you know those people who are extreme "anti-racists" or "pro-gay" or something like that? They go around saying things like, "Oh yeah, I'm friends with like fifty African-Americans/Asians/Indians/Slovaks/Antarcticans," as if firstly that they actually are, and secondly that makes them somehow a better person than those who aren't what they claim to be. Martin Luther King Jr. once said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” That's how it needs to be. The first thing you judge someone by should not be their race, their religion, their sexual orientation, or their gender. And by pointing out that a difference between them, you are only helping keep the problem around longer.
So no, feminism is not a "moot point," but I think we rely too much on it. We may argue that there are fewer women in higher positions, but how many women actually apply for those positions? And it's clearly possible to both raise a family and have a high position, as Licia Ronzulli, Italian representative at the European Parliament, shows us. She takes her now two-year-old daughter to work with her daily, and has been doing so since she was a baby. It may be society and the media sending a message to young girls that they shouldn't hold positions of power, but is there actually anything stopping them from reaching high and attaining such goals? Not really. It may be more difficult than for a man, but it is possible. Determination and qualifications is all a woman really needs nowadays.
I'll just finish by saying this: women, be proud of who you are. You are a woman, and not a man. You should take pride in this fact, but remember, you are not worth any less than a man. The only thing holding you back is yourself.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
I hate people who hate people
Get it, I was being hypocritical there? (kind of)
But seriously. I'm not sure how well you'll be able to connect to this, but here I go.
I am a hypocrite. I cannot stand liars. I can deal with a lot. I'll deal with cheating, being rude, clubbing baby seals, whatever. But if you lie about something, that will just piss me off to no end.
I don't really know why. You'd think that other stuff should bug me more. But it doesn't, (okay except the clubbing baby seals part.) I'll be more hurt by you being dishonest than if you just tell me the truth that will hurt me for sure. It's especially bad if I hear the truth from someone besides the one who lied to me. I suppose that's true for most people but in my world, that would be on par with treason. Especially if we're close friends. I'll tell you the truth and I'll expect the truth back.
But here's where I turn hypocritical. I say I'll tell you the truth, right? But I have trouble with that. Especially with my parents, unfortunately. It's not that I don't want to tell them. It's just that so often, if I tell them the truth, they'll either ridicule me or restrict my privileges, whether their actions are justified or not. And as a young, rebellious teenager, I don't like that one bit. I want my freedom, and I want it in whole. But that doesn't justify my actions one bit. I still say I hate liars, despite being one myself.
I don't like it. I'm sure no one does. But I will bet that a majority of people are like this. We hate what we are when we see it in other people. I'm sure there's some sort of fancy-dancy psychological reasoning behind it. But it is what it is. It's so hard to learn to forgive others for their actions, despite knowing that we are exactly like them. We may try to excuse ourselves, saying our actions or modivations to do the hated action were justified, it was the only logical response. I'm sure that's some sort of logical fallacy. But I would also bet that it's human nature to act that way.
So if you're in the same position as me, don't just sit around. Do something to change it. Because while it might be natural to act one way, it's not unnatural to change your way of thinking or your actions. Don't lose hope, little buddy. Fight on, fight on.
(hippocritical^)
I am a hypocrite. I cannot stand liars. I can deal with a lot. I'll deal with cheating, being rude, clubbing baby seals, whatever. But if you lie about something, that will just piss me off to no end.
I don't really know why. You'd think that other stuff should bug me more. But it doesn't, (okay except the clubbing baby seals part.) I'll be more hurt by you being dishonest than if you just tell me the truth that will hurt me for sure. It's especially bad if I hear the truth from someone besides the one who lied to me. I suppose that's true for most people but in my world, that would be on par with treason. Especially if we're close friends. I'll tell you the truth and I'll expect the truth back.
But here's where I turn hypocritical. I say I'll tell you the truth, right? But I have trouble with that. Especially with my parents, unfortunately. It's not that I don't want to tell them. It's just that so often, if I tell them the truth, they'll either ridicule me or restrict my privileges, whether their actions are justified or not. And as a young, rebellious teenager, I don't like that one bit. I want my freedom, and I want it in whole. But that doesn't justify my actions one bit. I still say I hate liars, despite being one myself.
I don't like it. I'm sure no one does. But I will bet that a majority of people are like this. We hate what we are when we see it in other people. I'm sure there's some sort of fancy-dancy psychological reasoning behind it. But it is what it is. It's so hard to learn to forgive others for their actions, despite knowing that we are exactly like them. We may try to excuse ourselves, saying our actions or modivations to do the hated action were justified, it was the only logical response. I'm sure that's some sort of logical fallacy. But I would also bet that it's human nature to act that way.
So if you're in the same position as me, don't just sit around. Do something to change it. Because while it might be natural to act one way, it's not unnatural to change your way of thinking or your actions. Don't lose hope, little buddy. Fight on, fight on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)