So I've noticed in the news lately that there have been a lot of articles about rape and sexual harassment cases, whether it be rapists being acquitted easily or victims being blamed or important people trivializing rape. My aim in writing the below is to make people on polarized ends of the opinion scale when it comes to rape realize the complexity of the relationship between the law and society's opinions, both of which are legitimate in their own right. I'd like for people to consider both sides of these cases and try to reconcile them so that we are not over-virginizing or condemning victims in these situations, incite more discussion and create a potentially fairer (or at least less contested) way for such cases to be handled in the future.
I'm not talking about stranger-rape or assault-rape or roofie-ing which is generally agreed upon to be outright disgusting and wrong and power-motivated, but rather the fuzzy-lined acquaintance type rape which seems to be coming up in the media more frequently lately. I'm also not going to talk about stupid politicians saying brainless things because that's not worth my time and I'm pretty sure most educated people know when their politicians are being idiots.
There are some things I'd like for people to realize about the justice system:
1) Rape is not necessarily sex without 'consent' in the regular sense. If a drunk girl throws herself at you, it is obvious that she "wants the D" (as one twitter user so eloquently put it), but it is considered rape in the eyes of the law if you then have sex with her, because she is in no state to give proper consent. If she sobers up and is fine with what she did, then okay. But if she regrets her actions and feels you took advantage of her drunken state (which you did), then from a courtroom's perspective you are a rapist. Plain and simple.
[apologies for assuming rapist is male and victim is female, this was in response to a particular case I read, obviously also applies for all combinations of genders]
2) Similarly for underage partners, the issue of one person taking advantage of another is the one that the law punishes, not the actual act of sex itself. A 13 year old cannot be held accountable for their deluded idea of what they want because they aren't old or mature enough to rationalize those decisions yet (note this is the same line of logic which allows underage offenders to have lighter sentences and have their own juvenile prisons, so if you believe minors should have sexual freedom then you are also saying you want all minors to be tried as adults in court). Statutory rape is not rape in the sense of having sex with someone against their will but the act of taking advantage of someone who cannot make legal decisions for themselves (and as an older person one should take responsibility of the situation). A lot of people are irked by the idea that if they turn 18/16 half a year before their significant other they are somehow in violation of the law if they are having sex, but it honestly can't be helped if you think about it since it's the law's job to put concrete boundaries on things and there has to be a line somewhere (if you think it's creepy for a 65 year old man to have sex with a 15 year old then you have proven that point to yourself already).
3) If a girl is wearing provocative clothing, you can't just say she wasn't raped. Someone likened this to walking around the street waving hundred dollar bills around and expecting not to get robbed. Yes, obviously there is risk, but in that case as well, is the thief innocent? There is only risk because we live in a society where people do things like cheat and steal. In an ideal world (which is what the law aims to propel), people should be able to walk around with hundred dollar bills hanging off them without the fear of being mugged. That's just a baseline of trust. In the rape scenario, the act of wearing short skirts is not a green light for rapists. You should ask a dude if you can borrow a hundred bucks from him just like you should always make sure your partner is willing, even if they happen to be wearing provocative clothing.
4) Perhaps the most important point in that it's the counterpoint: The justice system is not perfect, and it certainly does not dish out all the judgment. Society itself judges: this is why rape cases are so complex and have had so much coverage lately, because of the polarized opinions surrounding each case. In response to the points above:
4-1) In terms of victim blaming: a lot of people believe that nobody should get drunk enough to lose control of their senses like this , so since they gave up that control when they decided to drink those 12 consecutive shots, they should be responsible for their actions. Being drunk is not an excuse -- when it comes to cheating on your significant other, when it comes to accidentally killing someone, and of course when creating disorder on the streets at 3am in the middle of the night, so why is it okay to let rape victims off the hook if they were drunk? People should be responsible for their own drinking and know their own limits.That's also a common perspective.
4-3) As clearly demonstrated, people are more likely to blame victims if they were wearing provocative clothing, and though the law protects the ideal world, it's obvious that we don't live in one. So, if you do choose to wear such short dresses, you are basically accepting the risk of backlash from the community if you do get raped, though you are protected by the law. Just like you risk getting robbed if you flash your money, though it doesn't mean the thief is innocent, and you will probably not be punished for it by a judge, people are still going to talk about your stupidity in throwing your money around even if that's not what you intended by it. After all, what are you trying to achieve by wearing such clothing? Obviously to be more attractive to potential mates, says society (however I'd like to reiterate the point that attracting potential mates does not mean attracting every mate -- obviously she should still have freedom of choice in who she decides to sleep with, right?).
Society has an amazing capacity to criticize people who get by the law but they whom see as at least partially accountable. This really needs to be taken into account when people decide to do the things they do and expect only to be judged by the law. After all, why do you think there are so many memes about rape and girls "asking for it" online? People want to stop rape culture and rape humor but the fact is it exists and we should probably question why rather than trying to just block it off without reviewing where it came from.
I honestly think that in a lot of rape cases, it is not a cut-and-dry and only the rapist is accountable. A series of events unfolded prior to the act where there was possibly miscommunication of some sort, or alcohol involved, or any variety of things -- the reason that people blame the victim is not because they are horrible people, but because it is true that victim could have decreased their chances of being taken advantage of in some cases.
Though it is never okay for someone to have sex with someone without their outright consent, the amount of rape and trauma could be decreased if both parties watched their actions and understood what was at risk before doing anything. People often blame society for teaching "don't get raped" instead of "don't rape", but it doesn't make much sense to simply flip it and only teach "don't rape" either --honestly if we taught both wouldn't the number of cases of rape decrease even more? People should watch their own safety and watch out for potentially bad situations as well as make sure they don't hurt anyone. We shouldn't have to live in fear, but it's unrealistic to believe naively that we can walk outside and there is no danger anywhere and we can do whatever we want without risk. Everyone has to pull their weight for a better world.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
23 March 2013
23 November 2011
politics from the point of view of the politically ignorant
DISCLAIMER: I do not claim to be politically intelligent and if someone could educate me it would be welcomed. I am merely posting what I have gathered from the last few weeks and also from my own thought processes. Take all that I have to say below with a grain of salt. I have not done much research prior to typing up this post...
Just to be clear right now, I usually tend to have centre-left perspectives (according to online political personality tests I have done, reallllyy accurate I know, but it's the best we've got to compare to right now :P), however this post will probably seem that I am biased against Labour just because my family tends to vote National and also because I have become really really pissed off by the way Labour has presented itself to me lately.
From what I have gathered , Labour's dreams to increase the benefit base, close the gap between poor and rich and alleviate tax impact on the less fortunate have been good intentions definitely. HOWEVER. I find myself questioning where this money will come from (just as I have with Greens. Their grandiose dreams are nice to think about but so damn expensive and they are like children crayoning in wonderful worlds that they have no idea how to create in reality). The obvious conclusion is to increase taxes for those with higher income. For a party that encourages people to work harder, it seems highly hypocritical to be punishing those who work the hardest. Especially when the TRULY well off, the 'rich' who are well ahead of the poor, are probably trust fund babies who live in million dollar houses yet have no set income and therefore pay no tax. I acknowledge this is a gross generalization but they exist. The main issue most people seem to have with Labour's benefit policies is that it in fact creates an unfair society where those who are unwilling to work are given help on silver platters whereas those who work harder to get ahead are slowed down to help them.
YES, there are families whose circumstances cannot be helped, but there needs to be a balance between helping them get up on their feet and crippling the hardworking to help bums. How we get this balance, I have no clue (and quite honestly, it's not my job to know). I just wish politicians would stop playing their little power game and actually get shit done. Cos you know. That's their job and all. This is a very difficult issue to talk about so I will just move on now.
When Labour, Green and National came to our school to introduce themselves earlier this year... I found the Labour MP incredibly immature in that she kept trying to attack everything National had to say. It was not supposed to be a debate. I could attribute this to her young age but that would be so ageist lol, I really expected the leaders of this country to at least treat their jobs more seriously, although it was entertaining nonetheless. Likewise, in the letter I got from Labour today, I saw:
"At the last election, hundreds of thousands of young people in New Zealand didn't vote. Their votes would have been enough to decide the election... Under National, only the better-off are better off. They'll be hoping that this election young people still don't vote. Don't let them get away with it."
It seems to me that Labour is trying to get votes not by their own good ideas but just by trying to put down National. But it isn't really productive to simply say why someone else's ideas are shit, alternatives have to be given. Not to mention how NO EXPLANATION is given to us as to WHY either party is doing the things they're doing. National is planning to sell Air New Zealand and I hate the decision. To this day I still have no idea exactly why they have to sell it. To cover debts yes. But why specifically ANZ???? ): I love ANZ... Also I find the act of selling HUGE NZ owned assets to be a really dumb move, but what do I know, I don't do economics.
Maybe politicians want the public to remain politically ignorant so that we may be manipulated more easily in our democracy. I always did think that was the major downfall with democracy -- most people are ignorant and actually have no idea what are good for themselves and their country. These were my thoughts as I read their letter this morning over breakfast...
New Zealand's youth unemployment problem is one of the worst in the developed world
National is planning to sell off our power companies to overseas buyers
They've made it clear they want to mine our conservation land
(Why? both this and the above are National policies I personally don't like. But I also believe they must have semi-justified reasons for them at least. These 2 statements will sound bad to anyone, which is why Labour threw them into this leaflet in the first place, in order to keep people from voting National, but knowing that we must question why National would be doing it despite all this stigma. Sometimes things that are good for you are things that you will not necessarily like.)
(Why? both this and the above are National policies I personally don't like. But I also believe they must have semi-justified reasons for them at least. These 2 statements will sound bad to anyone, which is why Labour threw them into this leaflet in the first place, in order to keep people from voting National, but knowing that we must question why National would be doing it despite all this stigma. Sometimes things that are good for you are things that you will not necessarily like.)
They're widening the growing gap between rich and poor
(Statistics would be nice)
The country's credit rating has been downgraded
(This has happened in most western countries because the economy is weakening globally, not purely an NZ problem)
Labour will: Pay off the country's debt without selling off the power companies and other state assets -- providing a future we can all own
(How? Also the last bit is cheesy and is only there to sound good)
Increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour
(sounds good considering inflation)
Change the tax system to make sure everyone pays their fair share
(curious about a plan of this and how they're planning to do it)
Make your first $5000 of annual income tax free
(taxes would increase past this $5000 to make it the same anyway right, except worse for those who earn more, usually those who work harder? dunno not sure don't do eco, but seems like the natural conclusion)
Create more jobs and use the dole to pay for thousands of extra apprenticeships.
(How are they going to 'create more jobs' honestly, I don't get it...)
As I was reading the first letter from our electorate MP (National), I thought how it must be strategically beneficial to have power in the first place because you CAN send out a letter before the election this way and have an upper hand in getting re-elected. Usually unless you have been a really crappy MP, people wouldn't have much to complain about. If it weren't for the letterhead and signature on this letter, I would not have known that it was from National. There was no attack on other candidates. It was a pure simple "this is what we have done in the past years, and this is what we will be doing if I get re-elected." I liked that. It was incredibly refreshing and less didactic especially after I read the Labour leaflet.
Without all the propaganda, I am likely to be a person to agree with Labour's POV compared to National's. However, due to the shitty and unprofessional way Labour has decided to present itself to me in previous weeks as well as having next to no vision for their ideas and instead of working out a way to make their goals happen they have been wasting time bashing the National government in an effort to get votes, it seems that I will end up voting the other way this Saturday. I do not want immaturity ruling the country I live in. Honestly I miss Helen Clark's competence. It's a bit like Apple losing Steve Jobs.
Actually it probably doesn't matter too much which way the election goes. The government is made up of all these parties and both these major parties will be well represented. It's been shown that they agree on almost 50% of all bills presented to Parliament anyway, and I am happy to have Labour represent its ideas for equality in government. It has just become clear though, that since they have no means to actually support their own views, maybe the answer is to let someone else take care of the details who actually seems like they actually know what they are talking about.
"I wanna build this treehouse!" the boy said to his father, showing him an elaborately detailed drawing of a palace nestled in the tree he had done in felt tip pens at school. His father chuckled and took the plan off him, smiling.
"Ok, son. We'll get started soon. I just have to make a few technical plans based on your drawing."
And the boy beamed.
The treehouse ended up a bit boxier and less shiny than he had imagined, but at least he ended up getting one.
Moral of this story? If you can't build your own perfect treehouse, don't complain when someone else tries their best to build it for you, even if it's not as good as you think it should be. Bitch.
Of course, the problem here is that National doesn't seem to have much of a clue of what they are doing either and their decisions to sell off companies to cover the national debt will probably end up screwing over the country in the long term. But you know what, at this stage I am just so pissed off with Labour's incompetence that like I said, it MAY JUST BE choosing the slightly less shitty out of 2 shitty options.
END RANT? God I hate politics.
Because politics shouldn't be about sides, or who's right or wrong, who's the 'better' party. Our parliament is made up of MPs from all different parties, who all have ideas on how to make the country a better place. Parliament needs to work together and get shit done, not re-enact some kids' game of King of the Playground over an entire country whenever election day rolls around.
08 September 2011
SPRING...?
So like normally I'd have a really nice blogpost on the first of September because spring represents new beginnings/end of cold harsh winter/hope/warmth etc etc but this year what happened?
Well it's not like I forgot. But September 1 this year just wasn't that special. I remember I parked my car a bit from school because I wanted to walk in on the first of spring to enjoy the weather, but halfway there it started raining and I got drenched. So, not really an enthusiastic start to the season. Then with the added stresses of upcoming exams and viruses flying around the start to this month has been honestly pretty shit. I've been sick for a few days now; on Wednesday I pushed myself to go to school even though I had a fever because I had to get this french internal done. I woke up at 6am that morning with this pounding headache and muscle aches but went in anyway, and tanked the whole day (which may or may not have been a wise thing to do, but sure as hell shows me that I can get through things if I have the willpower), even drove there and back... when I got home I took a really really long hot shower and went to sleep.... although I woke up feeling like I was on fire and still headache, so I took my temperature... 38.6 degrees. YUPPPPP I'm sick. It's k, I've been taking my brother's prescription paracetamol since then so it hasn't been as high as that since. Although that night it randomly dropped to 34 degrees after dinner. I was experiencing mild hypothermia. I guess you could say my health is really fucked up right now?
So yeah yesterday I stayed at home. I missed like 4 photos and kept getting txts like WHERE ARE YOU???? ): SIGH... Instead I ended up watching grave of the fireflies and the notebook at home. Both were very good but I didn't cry in either. I don't really know why everyone keeps making the notebook out to be the saddest thing everrrrrr... I kept expecting something really big to happen but it never did. I went into school during lunchtime with my mum for the upenn talk. It wasn't that useful but made me realise that I need to get my shit together and start my uni applications like asap. Which of course just adds to the long list of stuff I have to do. ):
So as you can tell today I'm also staying home due to my retarded cold, near OD-ing on pills and shit, and it's only the 9th. To come: finishing my painting board, studying for mocks, studying for SAT, uni applications -- filling them out, getting references and writing essays, studying for externals. And all before november is over. IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT SPRING.........
I'm starting to experience what Mr. Torrie referred to as 'going off the rails' last year. I'm starting to wonder what's the point of all this, to the point where on Wednesday I really could not give 2 shits about how bad my french internal went. I mean I had stuff prepared, I just didn't use any of it in the end, and had a lot of awkward pauses in the conversation where I had to think of stuff to say. I don't know if it was because my attitude has gotten more lax or just because I'm sick. Because, I told myself, I didn't need those credits -- but that's never been an excuse. It's not a competition with the system, it's a competition with yourself. But when you can't be bothered competing anymore, what's left? It's been long enough I think, and I'm ready for uni. Even if I don't know exactly what I'll be doing yet, I'm ready to start something afresh. High school has begun to get too old and stale for my tastes. That's why I think it's so hard for me to focus lately. And this last run of important exams is just...... ughhhhh....
Fuck Spring 2011. This is what Spring is supposed to be like:
(november 2010, cornwall park)
Welll, it's probably just the sickness talking. But I really am pretty worried about the rest of this year. At least the sky's blue today... makes me feel a little better.
04 May 2011
In response to people freaking out about 2012
This is my geo schol essay from a few weeks ago, with the endnotes/references taken out. thanks to tian for helping me with the introduction. got a 7/8 for this one :)
like seriously you superstitious people... calm the fuck down.
Critically evaluate the following quote:
“The impact of natural disasters has risen dramatically over the past 20 years.”
Over the past 20 years, the economic, physical and psychological impact of natural disasters has risen dramatically mainly due to the two largest differences between the world now and the world 20 years ago – our population is much greater and our technology far more advanced. Population growth and urbanisation consequently lead to pressure to settle on marginal land and develop more built environments that could be potentially damaged, whereas the development of technology and industry makes us both more at risk and more aware of natural disasters when they occur. Superstitions also to some extent increase the psychological impact of natural disasters on humans more than they did 20 years ago (See fig1)
Critically evaluate the following quote:
“The impact of natural disasters has risen dramatically over the past 20 years.”
Over the past 20 years, the economic, physical and psychological impact of natural disasters has risen dramatically mainly due to the two largest differences between the world now and the world 20 years ago – our population is much greater and our technology far more advanced. Population growth and urbanisation consequently lead to pressure to settle on marginal land and develop more built environments that could be potentially damaged, whereas the development of technology and industry makes us both more at risk and more aware of natural disasters when they occur. Superstitions also to some extent increase the psychological impact of natural disasters on humans more than they did 20 years ago (See fig1)
Fig 1:
The effect of population growth on the growing impact of disasters is evident if the definition of a ‘natural disaster’ is analysed – a disaster is only devastating if it affects humans. Since there are more humans on Earth compared to 20 years ago (in 1990 the world population was around 5.2 billion – in 2010 it was 6.8 billion ), when a natural disaster strikes it is likely to cause more deaths than 20 years ago simply due to the fact that there are more people around. Furthermore, due to the increase in population, humans have had the need to inhabit areas that are perhaps not ideal for living, either due to lack of other spaces or for resources. In the past, the most devastating floods have been on the banks of Yellow River in China (it is speculated that up to 4 million people may have died due to a Yellow River flood in 1931 ), where a lot of people lived for the richness of the soil. In the last 20 years, as economic growth has become a priority of many countries, populations have inclined towards trade routes, especially ports and coasts. San Francisco is such an area as despite the high frequency of earthquakes (thousands each year ); many people live there as it is a primary port for export and import of resources. The impact of natural disasters such as inundations and tsunamis has therefore risen due to the increase in population in these areas that make humans more susceptible to them.
Humans have also relocated themselves into more concentrated city populations (in 1975 about 40% of the world’s population lived in large cities, in 2005 it was 60% ) where economic and industrial growth has created a more built environment that could potentially be damaged. The impact of natural disasters on the economy has thus risen dramatically as there is a need to repair structures such as buildings or bridges that have been damaged as quickly as possible, mainly due to the large population in cities who require residence and transport. Additionally, most people die not directly from the earthquakes themselves but from their effects on the surrounding environment. The co-existence of densely packed structures and the concentrated population in large cities mean that when a natural disaster strikes, it becomes many times more dangerous due to the number of unstable structures.
It is not only development in industry that has increased the impact of natural disasters; major development of technology can also play a big part in increasing the consequent damage of disasters. For instance, the 2011 Japanese tsunami became much more devastating and dangerous due to the presence of nuclear technology ; the threat of radioactive contamination would not have existed had an earthquake occurred in the past.
The nature of communication in the modern world is also much more technologically advanced than in the past. When there is a natural disaster, the news is able to reach many more people than before, in a fraction of the time it used to -- the mental and emotional impact caused by natural disasters has certainly risen dramatically. Over time, most of the Earth’s geographical area has also been mapped out due to the rising population. Where an earthquake could occur without anybody’s knowledge before, it is almost certain now that it will be reported due to people inhabiting most of the world’s land area. Humans have also developed more sensitive seismographic tools and knowledge of the movement of tectonic plates that they did not possess in the past and are far more able to cope with even small scale events. Humans are now even able to predict the likelihood of a natural disaster occurring in the near future (Many disaster warning systems was only implemented in the 1990s ). This means that the number of reported and recorded natural disasters has definitively increased from 20 years ago (see fig. 2, note significant increase in reports of natural disasters in 1990s, direct result of implemented warning systems). Obviously, people can only be affected by disasters that they have knowledge of, thus due to this increase in knowledge of the occurrences of natural disasters, the impact of such natural disasters also must increase.
Fig. 2 :
Natural disasters no longer simply affect those involved as victims, but the global population as a whole. When a natural disaster occurs in another part of the world, it is now expected that more able countries offer their aid – for instance, in response to Hurricane Katrina, nearly 100 other countries donated money, food or medical aid. The media plays a significant role in sensationalising natural disasters, the effect being that many more people not only know about a disaster when it occurs but also have access to images and footage taken of the event. Internet media and discussion boards also fuel this sensationalism as superstitions of the end of the Mayan calendar “2012” apocalypse theory (first widely publicised in 2006 ) arise whenever there is a major natural disaster in the world. The psychological impacts of this are obvious – the ‘official’ site for the 2012 apocalypse has almost 200 000 hits and there was even feature film produced in 2009 . 20 years ago, there was no such superstition, nor did the internet exist to provide a ground for people to discuss their thoughts and fears, so in this regard today natural disasters have far more psychological impact on humans than before.
Evidently, the changes the world has undergone in the last 20 years have contributed to the increased impact of natural disasters on our global population. Due to rising population and urbanisation, there are now a lot more structures and people that can be affected by natural disasters. Furthermore, technological advances have made communication more efficient and the news much more accessible, thus the presence of natural disasters now not only affects the victims but the global population as well. The impact of natural disasters, whether physically, economically or even psychologically on the population of the world has undeniably risen, even if it is questionable whether their frequency or potency has changed or not.
The effect of population growth on the growing impact of disasters is evident if the definition of a ‘natural disaster’ is analysed – a disaster is only devastating if it affects humans. Since there are more humans on Earth compared to 20 years ago (in 1990 the world population was around 5.2 billion – in 2010 it was 6.8 billion ), when a natural disaster strikes it is likely to cause more deaths than 20 years ago simply due to the fact that there are more people around. Furthermore, due to the increase in population, humans have had the need to inhabit areas that are perhaps not ideal for living, either due to lack of other spaces or for resources. In the past, the most devastating floods have been on the banks of Yellow River in China (it is speculated that up to 4 million people may have died due to a Yellow River flood in 1931 ), where a lot of people lived for the richness of the soil. In the last 20 years, as economic growth has become a priority of many countries, populations have inclined towards trade routes, especially ports and coasts. San Francisco is such an area as despite the high frequency of earthquakes (thousands each year ); many people live there as it is a primary port for export and import of resources. The impact of natural disasters such as inundations and tsunamis has therefore risen due to the increase in population in these areas that make humans more susceptible to them.
Humans have also relocated themselves into more concentrated city populations (in 1975 about 40% of the world’s population lived in large cities, in 2005 it was 60% ) where economic and industrial growth has created a more built environment that could potentially be damaged. The impact of natural disasters on the economy has thus risen dramatically as there is a need to repair structures such as buildings or bridges that have been damaged as quickly as possible, mainly due to the large population in cities who require residence and transport. Additionally, most people die not directly from the earthquakes themselves but from their effects on the surrounding environment. The co-existence of densely packed structures and the concentrated population in large cities mean that when a natural disaster strikes, it becomes many times more dangerous due to the number of unstable structures.
It is not only development in industry that has increased the impact of natural disasters; major development of technology can also play a big part in increasing the consequent damage of disasters. For instance, the 2011 Japanese tsunami became much more devastating and dangerous due to the presence of nuclear technology ; the threat of radioactive contamination would not have existed had an earthquake occurred in the past.
The nature of communication in the modern world is also much more technologically advanced than in the past. When there is a natural disaster, the news is able to reach many more people than before, in a fraction of the time it used to -- the mental and emotional impact caused by natural disasters has certainly risen dramatically. Over time, most of the Earth’s geographical area has also been mapped out due to the rising population. Where an earthquake could occur without anybody’s knowledge before, it is almost certain now that it will be reported due to people inhabiting most of the world’s land area. Humans have also developed more sensitive seismographic tools and knowledge of the movement of tectonic plates that they did not possess in the past and are far more able to cope with even small scale events. Humans are now even able to predict the likelihood of a natural disaster occurring in the near future (Many disaster warning systems was only implemented in the 1990s ). This means that the number of reported and recorded natural disasters has definitively increased from 20 years ago (see fig. 2, note significant increase in reports of natural disasters in 1990s, direct result of implemented warning systems). Obviously, people can only be affected by disasters that they have knowledge of, thus due to this increase in knowledge of the occurrences of natural disasters, the impact of such natural disasters also must increase.
Fig. 2 :
Natural disasters no longer simply affect those involved as victims, but the global population as a whole. When a natural disaster occurs in another part of the world, it is now expected that more able countries offer their aid – for instance, in response to Hurricane Katrina, nearly 100 other countries donated money, food or medical aid. The media plays a significant role in sensationalising natural disasters, the effect being that many more people not only know about a disaster when it occurs but also have access to images and footage taken of the event. Internet media and discussion boards also fuel this sensationalism as superstitions of the end of the Mayan calendar “2012” apocalypse theory (first widely publicised in 2006 ) arise whenever there is a major natural disaster in the world. The psychological impacts of this are obvious – the ‘official’ site for the 2012 apocalypse has almost 200 000 hits and there was even feature film produced in 2009 . 20 years ago, there was no such superstition, nor did the internet exist to provide a ground for people to discuss their thoughts and fears, so in this regard today natural disasters have far more psychological impact on humans than before.
Evidently, the changes the world has undergone in the last 20 years have contributed to the increased impact of natural disasters on our global population. Due to rising population and urbanisation, there are now a lot more structures and people that can be affected by natural disasters. Furthermore, technological advances have made communication more efficient and the news much more accessible, thus the presence of natural disasters now not only affects the victims but the global population as well. The impact of natural disasters, whether physically, economically or even psychologically on the population of the world has undeniably risen, even if it is questionable whether their frequency or potency has changed or not.
24 April 2011
just a rant.
I sat here for a long time trying to think of how to start...
My mind's still blank :/
Optimism and Pessimism by Sergio1970
I guess..... I've been trying to run from reflecting on myself for a long time. But I've realised that I don't really know myself as well as I would like. Everyone can tell me things about myself, but I just need some time to work out who I am for myself. Because I've hurt a lot of people recently without meaning to. I don't think enough about my actions. And I don't want to go down the road like so many people I know have gone down, into a road of apathy and cynicism. Maybe I'm already in the middle of it, or maybe I've hit the end. It doesn't matter, I want to turn around now.
So I will.
It won't be easy for sure. Changing yourself never is. But... I'll try at least.
So, I'm sorry... for everything. I know I'm not the nicest person anymore, I know I'm a shadow of the awesome person I used to be. So, I'm trying as hard as I can to backtrack and become a better person again.
My 14 year old self did warn me to never take this path. I didn't want to listen before, but I realise now that I was right all along as a child. I should trust childish instincts more.
I don't want to be corrupted by this world anymore.
Life is cruel, and it wants to push us into corners, harden ourselves up, put up spikes and protect and hide ourselves from it, or to attack it head on. I'm tired of fighting. I won't let life get the better of me, strip away my childish ideals and become an adult that doesn't see any happiness in the world.
Yes life is hard. I don't know when, but sometime in the past I somehow stopped seeing all the good things in life and began to see it as something I just have to get through. People became annoying, events boring. I don't want to turn into one of those adults that complain and complain but never do anything to better their situations. I'm going to try at least to go back to the optimistic happy person I was before all of this ever began.
Because fuck you life, despite all your bullshit I'm going to enjoy you.
My mind's still blank :/
Optimism and Pessimism by Sergio1970
I guess..... I've been trying to run from reflecting on myself for a long time. But I've realised that I don't really know myself as well as I would like. Everyone can tell me things about myself, but I just need some time to work out who I am for myself. Because I've hurt a lot of people recently without meaning to. I don't think enough about my actions. And I don't want to go down the road like so many people I know have gone down, into a road of apathy and cynicism. Maybe I'm already in the middle of it, or maybe I've hit the end. It doesn't matter, I want to turn around now.
So I will.
It won't be easy for sure. Changing yourself never is. But... I'll try at least.
So, I'm sorry... for everything. I know I'm not the nicest person anymore, I know I'm a shadow of the awesome person I used to be. So, I'm trying as hard as I can to backtrack and become a better person again.
My 14 year old self did warn me to never take this path. I didn't want to listen before, but I realise now that I was right all along as a child. I should trust childish instincts more.
I don't want to be corrupted by this world anymore.
Life is cruel, and it wants to push us into corners, harden ourselves up, put up spikes and protect and hide ourselves from it, or to attack it head on. I'm tired of fighting. I won't let life get the better of me, strip away my childish ideals and become an adult that doesn't see any happiness in the world.
Yes life is hard. I don't know when, but sometime in the past I somehow stopped seeing all the good things in life and began to see it as something I just have to get through. People became annoying, events boring. I don't want to turn into one of those adults that complain and complain but never do anything to better their situations. I'm going to try at least to go back to the optimistic happy person I was before all of this ever began.
Because fuck you life, despite all your bullshit I'm going to enjoy you.
18 March 2011
ffs
you know what pisses me off? when people try to do me favours without asking, or when they tell you to take care of their own business of which you have no knowledge. I just had to fucking search through the laundry for my long skirt, not find it, go downstairs, take the keys, go outside into the rain to my mum's car, discover i had taken the wrong keys, come back inside, take the right keys, go back outside to my mum's car again (which isn't even supposed to be outside, but my dad's car was inside today for some retarded reason), search through it, not find my skirt, come back inside, go upstairs, get told by my dad that it's in HIS car, go back downstairs, find my skirt in his car, go back upstairs with it, get told by him that the buttons on mum's keys don't fucking work, so i had to go back downstairs, take the keys, go outside, check the car and IT WAS ALREADY LOCKED...................................... and none of this would have been necessary if they would just trust me to look after my own damn laundry. oh and now i have bruises on my knuckle from punching the wall out of frustration. jesus christ.
don't even try to cheer me up, I enjoy being angry. at least it means I feel something strongly for once =___=
I understand that people feel like they're doing you a favour when they do stuff for you, but personally it just annoys me... I'm independent to that point where other people helping me is like a hassle for me. Unless I specifically ask for help, I'd prefer to just be left to do my own thing by myself... also it makes me feel like I owe them something which I dislike... it's not to say that I don't like groupwork, it's just that if it's my own business then I can take care of myself. Likewise, I won't get involved in someone else's business if it doesn't involve me. A lot of people find my way of thinking selfish or whatever, but do unto others right..? idk, it's just the way I feel. I don't even like it when my mum put stuff in my bowl when I eat. I find it so patronising.
lol nobody's gonna want to marry me unless they have the same feelings hahahahaha FOREVER ALONE...
don't even try to cheer me up, I enjoy being angry. at least it means I feel something strongly for once =___=
I understand that people feel like they're doing you a favour when they do stuff for you, but personally it just annoys me... I'm independent to that point where other people helping me is like a hassle for me. Unless I specifically ask for help, I'd prefer to just be left to do my own thing by myself... also it makes me feel like I owe them something which I dislike... it's not to say that I don't like groupwork, it's just that if it's my own business then I can take care of myself. Likewise, I won't get involved in someone else's business if it doesn't involve me. A lot of people find my way of thinking selfish or whatever, but do unto others right..? idk, it's just the way I feel. I don't even like it when my mum put stuff in my bowl when I eat. I find it so patronising.
lol nobody's gonna want to marry me unless they have the same feelings hahahahaha FOREVER ALONE...
10 March 2011
the point of view of a jack of all trades
So today in French we got into quite a heated debate about how sciences are supposedly 'harder' to get E in than subjects like Geography or Art, and that they are more 'valuable'. I was vehemently opposed to this idea, but it seems a lot of people think that way. I can't speak for Geography since I don't take it, but I remember last year my art class was also exasperated in holiday workshops about how people thought art was easy to get E in while we suffered indoors during the beginning of summer, trying to complete our boards when the weather outside was perfect for beaching.
It's not easier or harder to get Es in one or the other. It depends on the person and what they are good at. It's just that usually people who suck at art know that they suck at art and choose not to take it, which is why we have such a high concentration of Es in the department, since everyone who takes it is actually good at it. But, in science, a lot of people take it just so they can do med or engineering etc, but they are not necessarily that strong at it (I'm sorry, I have to say it). It's easier to tell if you are good at art or music than science. From what I can evaluate, people who take sciences are the ones who are INTERESTED in them -- whether they are any good is another story. But, with art, it seems everyone who takes it is somewhat good at it. The statistics are skewed.
Another reason for the higher concentration of higher ended credits is that the standards in art are more compacted -- we have 2 standards -- 6 credits and 12 credits. This means as well as us not wanting to screw them up because they are worth so much and thus working hard at them, when we succeed we get 12 credits straight up. But in science, there is a random scattering of 2s and 3s, 4s and 5s. So if we drop one standard (silly mistakes etc, since these standards are also much smaller and so if you screw up one little thing, you're screwed), we lose those 2 or so points. It's not much, but it can give the illusion that it's harder because we're like "omg! this paper is only worth 4 credits! how come the art ones are 12 credits in one go?" In a way it's kind of protecting us -- so if we screw up we won't lose as many credits.
Also, let me break it down -- the sciences and the arts are different. I don't think we should compare them in terms of difficulty. Someone said today that in art all you have to do is put time in, whereas with physics (the science in question at the time) you have to understand the concept. From my experience, art requires a more philosophical and technical kind of understanding than physics, but it is understanding all the same. Not to mention one also has to put time into ANY subject, not just physics, to have a full understanding. As someone who takes both art and science subjects, I feel that I have grown as a result of both -- but in different ways.
Furthermore, the salaries or success at finding jobs after graduating uni of someone with a science degree vs someone with a fine arts degree shouldn't be relevant to how easy or hard it is. Statistically speaking, there are more people with science degrees than fine arts degrees. But it is true, science is more relevant to the modern world than art. There is more demand for scientists than artists. However... how does this relate to one being easier or harder than the other? I would bet that only a small percentage of those scientists could drop everything and become an artist if circumstances demanded it, as with artists becoming scientists. Neither is easier than the other, they are equipped with different skill sets.
Perspective is everything. I actually wondered how any of them could make the call that science > art when it seemed all of them took at least one science but none of them took art...
Well, this isn't just about science and arts. I also recently had a debate with someone about how mathematics is just as relevant to life as literature. Many people think that studying shakespeare is worthless because "we will never use this after we get a job", and many people think that higher level pure mathematics is worthless also because "we will never use this after we get a job" -- but I think the value of these, of ANYTHING, comes with how it changes the way we think. As someone said in my english scholarship class earlier this year, well-read people are usually more open minded -- they can empathise better for they have learnt from a variety of experiences that they may have not necessarily experienced themselves. Likewise, people who have studied mathematics know how to think about logical problems, and how to twist lateral thinking to solve a problem while still not breaking the rules of logic.
Everything is so rich, full of opportunity for learning. Shutting ourselves off from a whole field of study because we think it is 'irrelevant' or 'not as useful' is a damn shame in my opinion.
[EDIT] so I found out the reason this debate started was because people felt that subjects like art weren't exactly 'academic' enough to warrant being part of a scholar's badge. I think the reason people think this way is because of the misnomer 'scholar's badge' -- in my view it's not actually a badge for SCHOLARS per se(GPA of 80+ in 5-6 subjects), it's just a badge showing that you're good at the subjects you do take. The way I see it, if you feel under-recognised because you take all science and maths subjects which are supposedly 'harder' to get E in, then perhaps you should consider switching your subject choices over to humanities if you find them easier (and vice versa). However from my experience for some reason (possibly for practicality reasons, as I said before uni courses like med and engineering demand sciences), more people take sciences over humanities and then complain about them. Perhaps those who take humanities know that's what they want to do and that's what they're good at, and they are not doing it simply because they want to get into a particular course in uni...?
It's not easier or harder to get Es in one or the other. It depends on the person and what they are good at. It's just that usually people who suck at art know that they suck at art and choose not to take it, which is why we have such a high concentration of Es in the department, since everyone who takes it is actually good at it. But, in science, a lot of people take it just so they can do med or engineering etc, but they are not necessarily that strong at it (I'm sorry, I have to say it). It's easier to tell if you are good at art or music than science. From what I can evaluate, people who take sciences are the ones who are INTERESTED in them -- whether they are any good is another story. But, with art, it seems everyone who takes it is somewhat good at it. The statistics are skewed.
Another reason for the higher concentration of higher ended credits is that the standards in art are more compacted -- we have 2 standards -- 6 credits and 12 credits. This means as well as us not wanting to screw them up because they are worth so much and thus working hard at them, when we succeed we get 12 credits straight up. But in science, there is a random scattering of 2s and 3s, 4s and 5s. So if we drop one standard (silly mistakes etc, since these standards are also much smaller and so if you screw up one little thing, you're screwed), we lose those 2 or so points. It's not much, but it can give the illusion that it's harder because we're like "omg! this paper is only worth 4 credits! how come the art ones are 12 credits in one go?" In a way it's kind of protecting us -- so if we screw up we won't lose as many credits.
Also, let me break it down -- the sciences and the arts are different. I don't think we should compare them in terms of difficulty. Someone said today that in art all you have to do is put time in, whereas with physics (the science in question at the time) you have to understand the concept. From my experience, art requires a more philosophical and technical kind of understanding than physics, but it is understanding all the same. Not to mention one also has to put time into ANY subject, not just physics, to have a full understanding. As someone who takes both art and science subjects, I feel that I have grown as a result of both -- but in different ways.
Furthermore, the salaries or success at finding jobs after graduating uni of someone with a science degree vs someone with a fine arts degree shouldn't be relevant to how easy or hard it is. Statistically speaking, there are more people with science degrees than fine arts degrees. But it is true, science is more relevant to the modern world than art. There is more demand for scientists than artists. However... how does this relate to one being easier or harder than the other? I would bet that only a small percentage of those scientists could drop everything and become an artist if circumstances demanded it, as with artists becoming scientists. Neither is easier than the other, they are equipped with different skill sets.
Perspective is everything. I actually wondered how any of them could make the call that science > art when it seemed all of them took at least one science but none of them took art...
Well, this isn't just about science and arts. I also recently had a debate with someone about how mathematics is just as relevant to life as literature. Many people think that studying shakespeare is worthless because "we will never use this after we get a job", and many people think that higher level pure mathematics is worthless also because "we will never use this after we get a job" -- but I think the value of these, of ANYTHING, comes with how it changes the way we think. As someone said in my english scholarship class earlier this year, well-read people are usually more open minded -- they can empathise better for they have learnt from a variety of experiences that they may have not necessarily experienced themselves. Likewise, people who have studied mathematics know how to think about logical problems, and how to twist lateral thinking to solve a problem while still not breaking the rules of logic.
Everything is so rich, full of opportunity for learning. Shutting ourselves off from a whole field of study because we think it is 'irrelevant' or 'not as useful' is a damn shame in my opinion.
[EDIT] so I found out the reason this debate started was because people felt that subjects like art weren't exactly 'academic' enough to warrant being part of a scholar's badge. I think the reason people think this way is because of the misnomer 'scholar's badge' -- in my view it's not actually a badge for SCHOLARS per se(GPA of 80+ in 5-6 subjects), it's just a badge showing that you're good at the subjects you do take. The way I see it, if you feel under-recognised because you take all science and maths subjects which are supposedly 'harder' to get E in, then perhaps you should consider switching your subject choices over to humanities if you find them easier (and vice versa). However from my experience for some reason (possibly for practicality reasons, as I said before uni courses like med and engineering demand sciences), more people take sciences over humanities and then complain about them. Perhaps those who take humanities know that's what they want to do and that's what they're good at, and they are not doing it simply because they want to get into a particular course in uni...?
14 January 2011
the "asian" method of parenting
Something that made me pissed off and a little bit thoughtful...
Firstly, read this article , an excerpt from "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" by Amy Chua. Apparently a self help book for anyone who wants to turn their children into an asian prodigy child by using the most hypocritical method ever.
You may or may not know, but this article has been the subject of a lot of debate especially among parent communities and asians (for obvious reasons). I admit that I probably only care about this because it affects me in some way, but if you've read it you will probably have had SOME reaction to it as well.
I admit the ideas behind her points are well grounded, and a lot of them are logical. However, it seems that she takes everything a bit off the extreme end of the scale, rather than maintaining a balance -- incredibly hypocritical considering that she herself mentioned Confucian filial piety as a reason for the way she treats her children the way she does, yet another part of Confucianism is the importance of BALANCE and HARMONY. It does remind me a bit of Christians who only cite parts of the bible to back up their own points and disregard anything that may conflict.
Also I'm probably the only one who thought this, but I found the entire article to be a little sexist. There are so many mentions of the chinese mother, but where is the father? She tells about a story with her husband trying to be reasonable at the end of the article, gloating in triumph that she was right and he was wrong. But her logic does not hold. Just because she forced her daughter to practise piano until she got it right even though she was throwing tantrums and insulting her to make her more and more frustrated doesn't mean that this method is necessarily better than being more lenient. It simply means it is one way of getting things done. She has obviously never tried other methods, so she cannot in fact comment on the effectiveness of her own. For all she knows, there could be a better and more effective method out there that doesn't involve negative feelings between her and her children; just because A causes B doesn't mean B is only obtainable through A -- that's basic logic, something I would expect an Ivy League professor to consider and be open minded to.
I can see here that she does somewhat have an idea about the concept of balance, but her idea of it seems to be in the extremes. There is no fluidity. Zebras are not grey, and if you stare at one up close for too long you'll probably get a headache. Everything in moderation is best in my opinion.
I find it extremely comical how her children are not allowed to get anything lower than an A grade at school -- except sport and drama. Why is sport and drama 'useless'? Professional sportsmen and actors are perhaps the most overpaid people in the world, so don't use the money excuse. I question whether it is because Chua herself has given into the stereotype that asians are no good at sports or drama? She herself accused her husband of not 'believing in' their daughter when she couldn't play the piano piece. Does that mean that if she believes in her daughters then they can do anything? If so, then why the limits on sports and drama? If she is trying to craft perfection, why not craft it in every way? Same with the instruments. Why are they not allowed to play any instruments apart from the piano and violin? True, they are instruments with lots of performance opportunity, but why not add a 3rd or 4th if she is trying to push her children to their full potentials?
In fact it's interesting that the children she is building seem to be in fact robot asian clones. We hear a lot about asian children like this. Her children are not that special. As the other controversial article published by Macleans magazine makes evident, there is an issue with the number of asians compared to other ethnicities at institutes of higher education (especially in canada and the states). Many jokes and parodies are made about how a lot of asians apply to universities, especially the ivy league (eg. this video by OnHarvardTime) By limiting her children to playing only the piano and violin and not motivating them as hard in sports and drama as other subjects, she is actually limiting their likelihood of getting into a good university, as well as obstructing their potential to become well rounded individuals. Also I would expect her to realise this seeing as she TEACHES AT YALE... (fair enough, she's not part of the admissions faculty. but I would expect her to have been in contact with enough of her students to realise that it's important to be well rounded) Then again maybe she is relying on the fact that her children are not technically fully asian to get them past this hurdle. Still I find that her wishing the best for her children conflicts with her limiting them. In case you haven't realised already, I find her very very annoyingly hypocritical. I question how she would have handled twins, if she expects her children to always be 1st in class.
Although, I question about myself when I read this article. It's true that I don't think anything of it when my own parents tell me I'm fat, and I never tell my parents to come to a show I'm starring in etc. I don't even care if they come to prizegiving or not. But I question whether this is due to my upbringing or because I am just like that as a person. I do not crave attention from my parents, and I am comfortable enough in my own skin to not care about what my parents think. This could conversely also mean that due to my upbringing I have realised that adults are full of shit and therefore I shouldn't take what they say too seriously. My parents have said that I am extremely headstrong and freespirited though, to the point where I dislike taking other people's advice and help. I do agree that children should not be indulged and spoilt so much that they become weak and fragile and thin-skinned though. It takes a certain amount of resilience (Mrs J year 7 :P) to survive in this world, and everything shouldn't be given to a child on a golden platter.
The one line that probably pisses me off the most in the whole article though, is probably this:
At least she said 'believe' and not just "chinese parents know..." The problem is, I hate it when parents believe their children are objects forever indebted to them that they can control as puppetmasters. If this is so, nobody would ever live their own lives, forever living vicariously through their children. Then those who are infertile wouldn't be able to live any life at all. Living vicariously through others also has extreme limits. We cannot feel what they are feeling, what we perceive as moments of happiness may not be things they are necessarily interested in. Living your own life as you wish is always better than trying to live someone else's. I would even go as far as to say that a parent who cared about children more than they cared about themselves would allow them the basic human right of free will at the very least.
She shouldn't kid herself. Her daughters have probably done a lot of shit that she doesn't know about. And it's probably from their own experiences that they have learnt more about themselves than she can ever teach them by preventing them from trying things on their own. I could be wrong, but ALL the teenagers I know have rebelled at some time or another and not told their parents about it. There is this impermeable wall between adolescents and their parents no matter how close they are. If they haven't rebelled yet, I would be really surprised.
I guess what I mean to say is that although I can see the logic behind her method, I completely disagree with the method itself. It's good to push the potential of your children, it's good to not be satisfied with anything but the best. But when you take it too far and force them into doing things they are not necessarily interested in, when you start depriving them of their social needs and freedom, when you start doing things that actually MAKE NO SENSE... that's when it's taking it too far.
Yes, her 'method' may have produced a 'stereotypically successful kid'. But what part? I can definitely say there are things in her method that are limiting her children's potential. But what happens with this stereotypically successful kid becomes an adult? Will they still be successful? In the real world, academic knowledge cannot replace experience. Well rounded individuals are the most successful. Being able to play the piano or violin doesn't mean anything if you can't stop your arms getting run over by a car because you've never crossed the road by yourself because you've never been allowed outside your own house without your parents. The stereotypical asian successful kid is only heard about up to undergraduate college level. We never hear about stereotypically successful asian adults to the same degree. Why? Maybe because they're all at home yelling at their own children to math harder... Who knows?
My parents didn't make me do of ANY the things on her precious list. I quit piano because I didn't like it. I went back to it because I saw the value in it. Yes, perhaps if my parents had grilled me harder I could have been a performance pianist. Perhaps not. I will never know, but I know that I would not have been happy. There would be little bits of happiness here and there, but the majority would be frustration. By doing things my own way, I have created my own form of happiness, perhaps not as extreme, but happiness all the same... A sweeter, more delicate kind of happiness that I am truly thankful for. A happiness that comes from my freedom, from crafting my life with my own two hands. And I will continue to craft my future with them, because there's no way I'd ever let anyone else take charge of the most valuable thing I have.
Firstly, read this article , an excerpt from "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother" by Amy Chua. Apparently a self help book for anyone who wants to turn their children into an asian prodigy child by using the most hypocritical method ever.
You may or may not know, but this article has been the subject of a lot of debate especially among parent communities and asians (for obvious reasons). I admit that I probably only care about this because it affects me in some way, but if you've read it you will probably have had SOME reaction to it as well.
I admit the ideas behind her points are well grounded, and a lot of them are logical. However, it seems that she takes everything a bit off the extreme end of the scale, rather than maintaining a balance -- incredibly hypocritical considering that she herself mentioned Confucian filial piety as a reason for the way she treats her children the way she does, yet another part of Confucianism is the importance of BALANCE and HARMONY. It does remind me a bit of Christians who only cite parts of the bible to back up their own points and disregard anything that may conflict.
Also I'm probably the only one who thought this, but I found the entire article to be a little sexist. There are so many mentions of the chinese mother, but where is the father? She tells about a story with her husband trying to be reasonable at the end of the article, gloating in triumph that she was right and he was wrong. But her logic does not hold. Just because she forced her daughter to practise piano until she got it right even though she was throwing tantrums and insulting her to make her more and more frustrated doesn't mean that this method is necessarily better than being more lenient. It simply means it is one way of getting things done. She has obviously never tried other methods, so she cannot in fact comment on the effectiveness of her own. For all she knows, there could be a better and more effective method out there that doesn't involve negative feelings between her and her children; just because A causes B doesn't mean B is only obtainable through A -- that's basic logic, something I would expect an Ivy League professor to consider and be open minded to.
"I'm willing to put in as long as it takes, and I'm happy to be the one hated. And you can be the one they adore because you make them pancakes and take them to Yankees games."
I can see here that she does somewhat have an idea about the concept of balance, but her idea of it seems to be in the extremes. There is no fluidity. Zebras are not grey, and if you stare at one up close for too long you'll probably get a headache. Everything in moderation is best in my opinion.
I find it extremely comical how her children are not allowed to get anything lower than an A grade at school -- except sport and drama. Why is sport and drama 'useless'? Professional sportsmen and actors are perhaps the most overpaid people in the world, so don't use the money excuse. I question whether it is because Chua herself has given into the stereotype that asians are no good at sports or drama? She herself accused her husband of not 'believing in' their daughter when she couldn't play the piano piece. Does that mean that if she believes in her daughters then they can do anything? If so, then why the limits on sports and drama? If she is trying to craft perfection, why not craft it in every way? Same with the instruments. Why are they not allowed to play any instruments apart from the piano and violin? True, they are instruments with lots of performance opportunity, but why not add a 3rd or 4th if she is trying to push her children to their full potentials?
In fact it's interesting that the children she is building seem to be in fact robot asian clones. We hear a lot about asian children like this. Her children are not that special. As the other controversial article published by Macleans magazine makes evident, there is an issue with the number of asians compared to other ethnicities at institutes of higher education (especially in canada and the states). Many jokes and parodies are made about how a lot of asians apply to universities, especially the ivy league (eg. this video by OnHarvardTime) By limiting her children to playing only the piano and violin and not motivating them as hard in sports and drama as other subjects, she is actually limiting their likelihood of getting into a good university, as well as obstructing their potential to become well rounded individuals. Also I would expect her to realise this seeing as she TEACHES AT YALE... (fair enough, she's not part of the admissions faculty. but I would expect her to have been in contact with enough of her students to realise that it's important to be well rounded) Then again maybe she is relying on the fact that her children are not technically fully asian to get them past this hurdle. Still I find that her wishing the best for her children conflicts with her limiting them. In case you haven't realised already, I find her very very annoyingly hypocritical. I question how she would have handled twins, if she expects her children to always be 1st in class.
Although, I question about myself when I read this article. It's true that I don't think anything of it when my own parents tell me I'm fat, and I never tell my parents to come to a show I'm starring in etc. I don't even care if they come to prizegiving or not. But I question whether this is due to my upbringing or because I am just like that as a person. I do not crave attention from my parents, and I am comfortable enough in my own skin to not care about what my parents think. This could conversely also mean that due to my upbringing I have realised that adults are full of shit and therefore I shouldn't take what they say too seriously. My parents have said that I am extremely headstrong and freespirited though, to the point where I dislike taking other people's advice and help. I do agree that children should not be indulged and spoilt so much that they become weak and fragile and thin-skinned though. It takes a certain amount of resilience (Mrs J year 7 :P) to survive in this world, and everything shouldn't be given to a child on a golden platter.
The one line that probably pisses me off the most in the whole article though, is probably this:
Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences.
At least she said 'believe' and not just "chinese parents know..." The problem is, I hate it when parents believe their children are objects forever indebted to them that they can control as puppetmasters. If this is so, nobody would ever live their own lives, forever living vicariously through their children. Then those who are infertile wouldn't be able to live any life at all. Living vicariously through others also has extreme limits. We cannot feel what they are feeling, what we perceive as moments of happiness may not be things they are necessarily interested in. Living your own life as you wish is always better than trying to live someone else's. I would even go as far as to say that a parent who cared about children more than they cared about themselves would allow them the basic human right of free will at the very least.
She shouldn't kid herself. Her daughters have probably done a lot of shit that she doesn't know about. And it's probably from their own experiences that they have learnt more about themselves than she can ever teach them by preventing them from trying things on their own. I could be wrong, but ALL the teenagers I know have rebelled at some time or another and not told their parents about it. There is this impermeable wall between adolescents and their parents no matter how close they are. If they haven't rebelled yet, I would be really surprised.
I guess what I mean to say is that although I can see the logic behind her method, I completely disagree with the method itself. It's good to push the potential of your children, it's good to not be satisfied with anything but the best. But when you take it too far and force them into doing things they are not necessarily interested in, when you start depriving them of their social needs and freedom, when you start doing things that actually MAKE NO SENSE... that's when it's taking it too far.
Yes, her 'method' may have produced a 'stereotypically successful kid'. But what part? I can definitely say there are things in her method that are limiting her children's potential. But what happens with this stereotypically successful kid becomes an adult? Will they still be successful? In the real world, academic knowledge cannot replace experience. Well rounded individuals are the most successful. Being able to play the piano or violin doesn't mean anything if you can't stop your arms getting run over by a car because you've never crossed the road by yourself because you've never been allowed outside your own house without your parents. The stereotypical asian successful kid is only heard about up to undergraduate college level. We never hear about stereotypically successful asian adults to the same degree. Why? Maybe because they're all at home yelling at their own children to math harder... Who knows?
My parents didn't make me do of ANY the things on her precious list. I quit piano because I didn't like it. I went back to it because I saw the value in it. Yes, perhaps if my parents had grilled me harder I could have been a performance pianist. Perhaps not. I will never know, but I know that I would not have been happy. There would be little bits of happiness here and there, but the majority would be frustration. By doing things my own way, I have created my own form of happiness, perhaps not as extreme, but happiness all the same... A sweeter, more delicate kind of happiness that I am truly thankful for. A happiness that comes from my freedom, from crafting my life with my own two hands. And I will continue to craft my future with them, because there's no way I'd ever let anyone else take charge of the most valuable thing I have.
28 November 2010
hooooly crap I am so bored
7 Deadly Sins Meme... stolen from yujie
1) I'm awesome. That's all that needs to be said.
2) Tbh after the first one I don't really know what else to put. I guess I'll be specific? Well, I guess I'm pretty unique personality-wise. But a lot of people are like that so yeah, I don't like to feel too special. People have said that I am pretty atypical tho :) I mean who else camps in front of their computer on a Sunday night and types up large blocks of texts onto a blog because they have no friends?
3) I'm also great because I'm so forgiving I suppose. Sometimes I guess that could be used against me, but I reckon that's alright. Most of the time people deserve second chances. I don't like holding grudges against people, and at least if I don't like hanging out with someone I have the common sense to, you know, not hang around them.
4) I lead a pretty balanced life. I value the work that needs to be done quite highly, but I wouldn't consider myself to be a workaholic. I often say that I would not lose sleep over anything work related, and I stand by that. Relaxing and enjoying life is very important to me. Education is important, but it's not the most important thing in life. Actually several people have noticed this about me haha, so I guess it's a good trait.
5) I'm very open minded. I'm pretty much accepting of anything out of the ordinary, and I like to think that I respect other people's opinions. Well I hope so anyway, but I'm only human.
6) I'm fucking smart. Had to be said. -arrogant sniff-
7) I have a sense of humour! Oh goshhh haha how would I survive without being able to laugh at myself? :) I stuff up way too much to not laugh at all my mistakes haha. I guess as a result of that I'm also easygoing and don't really mind when people mock me :P which they do ofc. all the time.
Part 2 - Envy. Seven things you lack and covet.
1) Some hot rich tall boyfriend.
2) Actually, just money without the boyfriend would be alright too.
3) The ability to swim
4) Passion for something
5) Willpower and motivation
6) Looks. Well tbh I don't have that many problems with the way I look but hey since you asked I might as well ask for a 10/10 worthy appearance ;)
7) Everlasting youth
Part 3 - Wrath. Seven things that piss you off.
1) Ignorance and narrowmindedness
2) Consumerism. I hate how the world is wasting its resources to maintain the constant flow of money. It makes no sense on a global scale or as a system. People are just too caught up in it already that it seems like it's too late to do anything about it though sigh.
3) Irrationality
4) Discrimination based on sex/race/religion/whatever else there is. Actually today when I was in town a white guy muttered "chang chang china" a few times as we walked past. I was so tempted to turn around, flip him off, tell my friends to hold my shit while I went and beat him up while ranting and being extremely racist towards white people. But you know, ignoring my obvious physical weakness, I'm simply too much of a lady :P Seriously though, those who know me know that I would actually have the balls to do that if I was really pissed off.
5) Parents who try to control their children's lives. I guess it's especially applicable to asian families (stereotyping, but you have to admit it's true). Imo if the kid doesn't really enjoy what he's doing he's not going to succeed anyway. Then when he's having his midlife crisis and his parents are dead he'll be wondering why the heck he listened to them and threw away his dreams of being a tattoo artist to become an accountant. True story btw, there was a news feature in the NY times about this a few weeks ago. But at least he came to his senses and went back to art school. Come on parents, it's not your life to control.
6) Actually, pressuring and nagging from parents too. I actually recently discovered that I cannot stand talking to my mum because EVERY TIME we have talked in the last month or so she has brought up the subject of exams or university entrance or other people's exam results. I say fuck that, I'm not going to discuss what I don't need to worry about yet. Actually on the subject of other people's exam results, I think my mum is more interested in my friends than I am. Seriously who gives a crap about other people's exam results lol, I have my own to be worrying about...
7) I don't really know, I'm quite tired now from all that ranting. Ummmmmm......... let's just say I split my number 1 into 2, ignorance AND narrowmindedness. kk done. "But you can't do that!! you're cheating!!" Pshhhh don't tell me how to do my own meme.
Part 4 - Sloth. Seven things you neglect to do.
1) Tidy my desk. It seems with each month that goes by, the height of my mountain of papers seems to grow faster than my hair does.
2) Homework
3) Eat fruit. That's more a case of disliking them than actual laziness though.
4) Backing up my harddrive... could turn out disastrous if my computer crashes...
5) Being nice to my brother. And I don't think I'll start anytime soon either. What a bitch! yea I know.
6) L2cook. Well I will these holidays hopefully.
7) Plan ahead. But... it's so pointless and annoying =__=
Part 5 - Greed. Seven worldly material desires.
1) Money
2) Designer shoes
3) Clothes
4) Private car + chauffeur
5) A plane. Yeah, like a private jet. With a pilot, obviously.
6) Penthouse apartment
7) Actually now that I go back and look, all the above can be solved with number 1) money. I guess that's what you get for asking for 'worldly material desires'
Part 6 - Gluttony. Seven guilty pleasures.
1) Maplestory
2) Gossip Girl
3) Eating a lot of ice cream and chocolate at once
4) Blogging too much
5) SC2 commentaries
6) Surfing study forums
7) Being told I'm awesome. Oh WAIT, that's just a regular pleasure. :)
Part 7 - Lust. Seven love secrets.
Part 7 - Lust. Seven love secrets.
I don't think my private life is really something to be shared over the internet lol. Well you are welcome to ask, depending on how I feel at the time I might reveal some things or nothing at all. But I'm sure no one is ballsy enough, or more importantly, BORED enough, to ask haha... Honestly though, the more of a stranger you are to me, the more likely it is that I will reveal things. I'm quite careful about discussing my love life with people who are close to me, because I know that in our world society forms a lot of judgement based on people's private lives. Personally I find it wrong, but it does happen, so yeah. Sorry :P If I told you, they wouldn't be 'secrets' now would they? :)
11 November 2010
dumb sluts.
Slut is a pejorative term meaning an individual who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally applied to women and used as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning "dirty or slovenly."
So why then, do we label girls as 'sluts' when we have no idea what their private lives are like? How can we say 'you dress like a slut' when we don't know what a 'slut' would dress like? Or is there a particular way a woman who sleeps with a lot of men must dress to display to the rest of the world that they do? And why would they, when society views promiscuity so lowly?
I'm pretty sure that like half of the girls who 'dress like sluts' actually not promiscuous. I'd even go far enough to say that a great proportion of them are virgins. I don't know why they choose to dress the way they do -- perhaps for attention? However, it's not my place to judge, nor do I care; it's really none of my business. People dress in certain ways to show the public how they want to be perceived, eg. the fashionistas, 'emo/scene' kids, 'gangstas'. This is no different.
Some will argue that it IS different, because it encourages girls to be oversexed from a young age. But why is this such a big deal compared to encouraging teenagers to listen to depressing music and cut themselves, or to join a gang and do drugs? Because isn't that what emos and gangsters are associated with? Why is oversexing women such a big deal?
It's because women are seen to represent something pure and untainted. It's like how men are seen to be the protectors and leaders -- a stereotype that has good roots, but there is so much diversity in today's society that we desperately try to enforce these old gender roles, and the result is more and more revolt. People want to be different, to be individuals. Putting a taboo on sexuality is like telling people not to smoke weed; it's going to happen anyway. Thing is, sex is not even a bad thing; it's biology's way to ensure species survival, and as humans, it is a way to show love for another person. Why have we been conditioned to view it as something dodgy and 'dirty'?
And why do people assume that if you go out and party a lot, get drunk, do drugs, sleep around, and are 'hot', that you cannot possibly be smart? (okay I do admit that it doesn't leave a lot of time for studying, but there's no reason someone who likes to party can't also be intelligent -- as someone said "the difference is, the smart person parties, but in the morning they also get up early and study instead of lying around the whole day") I quote, from an IMDB forum post on the forum for The Social Network (excellent film btw, anyone who uses facebook should watch it):
Are we supposed to believe that harvard girls look like that??? Puleahhhshssseeee. Girls that look like that or go to parties like that have the same IQ as Paris Hilton and can't even go to community college. Maybe Harvard has a lot of parties but I seriously doubt they would have such strong sexual scenes since that doesn't even happen in The Jersey Shore or tacky reality shows. Those girls are probably hired escorts or hoes they picked up at a club.
See first bolded sentence. Ignoring all the harvard bitch jokes (come on guys.), is it totally inconceivable that people who are able to make it into Ivy League schools could be good looking? I can say that after being to Yale... well, that it's definitely not true. The guys at Yale are top notch. ;) Oh wait, are they just talking about girls? Oh yeah, because there must be a difference in attractiveness in females and males based on their INTELLIGENCE...
And now look at second bolded sentence. Note how this narrowminded poster has assumed that because they go to parties, and they are 'dumb', they must also be prostitutes. It is also implied that girls who go to clubs are 'hoes'. This leap of logic is simply unbridgeable and sadly reminiscent of the kind of prejudice that I see all the time. And yes, it does piss me off. People think in stereotypes far too much.
Also, why do people always say "I hate her, she's a slut"? Since when is someone's preference to sleep with a lot of people a reason for them to be hated? Does it make them a worse person, more likely to stab you in the back, a worse friend? I know it's something some people just can't get over (especially guys), but really... think logically. Just because she's had a lot of boyfriends doesn't make her a bad person. In fact it should be an indication that she is a lovely girl who a lot of guys want to be with... so, why all the hate? Interesting also, that a girl who is a 'slut' will still have friends to back her up when other people insult her -- gee, maybe because SHE'S NOT A BAD PERSON?
Now I quote something a guy has said to me recently: "To me, there are two types of girls: Girls, and bitches/sluts". This implies that a) bitches/sluts are not girls and b) the terms bitch and slut are interchangeable. THEY ARE NOT. Bitches are actually less likely to be sluts because come on, who wants to sleep with someone like that? Unless you're not picky, or she's hot. But that's just more affirmation that you either do view her as a girl, or that you treat her as an object. If it's the first, you revoke your own argument, if it's the second, you're a misogynistic pig. Lose/lose.
I could go on and on about this really. But that's just everything that came to mind just now. I'm not going to talk about how the gender difference in how 'sluts' are used to label women only and the lock/key analogy because I feel that's been covered already. I will say that women calling other women sluts is retarded though, because it's like as a woman you don't have any friends -- guys call you a slut, other girls call you a slut, like wtf, no wonder I have no self confidence -- maybe I should just act like a slut to prove them right, then maybe we'll all agree on something? But I do have the opinion that it's probably out of jealousy, even if most girls are unwilling to admit it. Ofc you want to be noticed by guys, it's in your genetic code (unless ofc you're not straight, in which case you don't really get this problem), so if another girl gets more attention because of the way they dress and you have too much pride or w/e to act in that way, it's natural to be jealous. It's IN OUR GENES to want to reproduce. That's just science.
This is why I hate it when people label girls as 'sluts'. Now you know. Feel free to disagree; I'm very unlikely to agree with your opinion, but I won't try to shoot you down or anything (provided it's well reasoned), I'm just putting mine out there.
05 August 2010
Mediocrity at its best.
I've been feeling mediocre these days. Going to sleep earlier each night because there's really nothing exciting to do if I stay up, letting my mind wander more and more regardless of what I'm doing at the time, being unamused by pretty much everything. Just... bored.
And of course the things I want the most are unattainable to me in real life (or would be stupid to attempt to attain?), so it makes sense to escape into a dreamworld where anything I want to happen can. As always, the best part of my day is sleeping. The longer I get to stay in the perfect world the better... everyday life becomes a chore, the busiest days being the ones I enjoy the most; they pass by the quickest, and then I get to run off to my bed again :)
That's not to say that I live in a monochromatic world. I mean plenty of interesting colourful things happen everyday. Thought provoking, wonderful things. But I just feel like I'm not really enjoying them as much as other people are. At times I feel completely unmotivated, uncaring what happens. The 'fuck it' attitude, if you will. There's no problem being cheerful of course. Most of my friends make it pretty easy to be happy, even if it's not the best happiness. Other 'friends' tho, I find myself not even bothering to act cheerful around. Can I really call them my friends? Even if we hang out a lot, it's pretty obvious we don't really regard each other as close 'friends' as such... well that's a thought.
I feel like I'm in this state of passiveness, because it feels like whenever I do something proactive I end up screwing myself over in some way. What about it? Well, I've learnt that going with the flow is safe, but not necessarily happy. Then again I suppose that's a given.
So what's been bugging me lately? Well, I recently realised that I might have a fear of commitment. That's why I'm so scared of growing up I guess. I can't stand the thought of being stuck doing 1 thing for the rest of my life, marrying 1 person, and staying with them forever, having kids and having to take care of them until they grow up... but at the same time it's not like I don't want to do those things either, because I don't want to end up alone my whole life...
I also dislike it when people rely on me too much, especially when it's not even my job. Like, stop thinking I'm this amazing perfect person who can do anything for you. I am no different to anyone else. "because you're smart" is not a reason to assume it's easier for me to do anything. No matter what it is, it still takes effort on my part. So don't you dare assume that it's your right to use me and that I'd put in that effort just for you, without your even asking if it would be okay, and just demanding. That's just plain rude =_=
Sometimes I want to run away for a while, and not talk to anyone. In most ways human company is great, but sometimes I just get sick of people, you know? It becomes a chore to talk to them and maintain small talk. What would I do by myself though? I have no idea. The problem with leading a mediocre life is there is really nothing worth the effort. On the flipside though, the problem with an exciting life is that there is too much drama. It's so hard to maintain a balance in life :/
It would be so nice to have a clone of myself with whom I could talk to. It's so hard to find someone who can understand me completely. Sometimes I think I'm going insane, because the way I think sometimes is so unconventional, and it scares me. Sometimes I feel like after I broke up with Will my life just went downhill this year. Then again that might just be this year... Why did I break up with him again? I don't even remember, but of course there's no way to go back. I don't regret it, I have no feelings there anymore. Do I have feelings anywhere anymore? Or am I just kidding myself, forcing myself to express things I don't really feel? Thoughts circle run messily nothing really making sense in my head right now or on my fingers or on this page.
Yup, insanity's got a hold of me.
13 July 2010
pot luck #2
Yay another pot luck entry ^^ where I put random thoughts I've had over the past few days that aren't big enough to make into entries of their own, + any other random things that happen to come up.
Kay well holidays are almost over, I haven't done the work I was meant to have done, instead wasted too much time going out with friends and bumming around at home doing nothing == but will try to make up for it in the next few days? ha, gl with that winnie, andrew's party tomorrow and work on sunday... orz
Today in the car I was just thinking and I realised that society is really quite interesting. Although we live our own lives, we have laws and human rights etc to protect our people. Like, if you get fined for bad driving, it's not because the police want your cash, but it's meant to be a deterrent so you don't drive unsafely (cuz you don't want to pay money), so the people's lives on the road aren't endangered. I thought that was interesting since our laws take care of the people as a whole, yet individually we pretty much live our own lives.
Which brings me to my next thought, that people all have completely different experiences and range of abilities. Like, most of us are pretty average at everything (meaning of the word 'average' lol), but there are families of people who are like really involved in music etc, and those guys who are obsessed with classic cars, or who have a guitar collection which has 10x more worth than the walls of the 1 bedroom apartment on which it occupies... there are some people who are really really into that one thing. I think that's really great, kinda wish I was like that haha. But nah, I'm just a regular old person who doesn't have that thing I'm like SUPER PASSIONATE about... But I do think it makes for interesting characters. I guess that's how it's possible for everyone to be different in the world of 7 BILLION :]
You know, having an 'away' status on msn when you are not actually away is a lot like running away from your responsibilities. Kinda like taking some down time while you think about what to do next? Idk, when I have status on 'away' I feel like I have no obligation to reply to people who say hi or ask for stuff because they wouldn't know the difference between if I were really there or not. I don't know if that's a bad thing; maybe it's a sign that I should stop ignoring my responsibilities...
There's a difference between sounding sophisticated and sounding pretentious. I don't know how you avoid sounding pretentious and sophisticated instead, but it's definitely something you can pick out from someone's writing. I'm not what it is about the style, but there's just something about the writing that makes me think, "wow this writer's a snob," as opposed to, "wow this guy knows what he's talking about." I think there's a certain elegance to sophisticated writing, but pretentiousness is just annoying... unfortunately I'm pretty sure sometimes my writing turns out pretentious when I'm meaning to sound sophisticated :l I read over it sometime after writing it and think, "wow, I'm such a douchebag."
I have this issue with things being 'fair'. Some days I think it would be so nice if life was fair and so I try to make everything as 'fair' as possible, but others I just accept that life isn't fair so it makes no difference what I do either. But actually the more I think about it, fairness needs to be defined. Because if everything were truly fair, everyone would look the same and do the same things all the time. It would be like the return of the clones :l That's not an interesting world at all in my opinion. So strangely enough I actually see merit in embracing the injustice in our world a bit, cuz it's not all bad. ...I'm either terribly optimistic, or today's just one of those days when I don't give a toss about the state of the world...
Actually it's probably the latter, cuz today in the radio they were talking about the 2nd generation of the rich family businesses etc, and how they're having some trouble in China since none of it is formally legally sorted out and some of the 2nd generation are just wasting their parents money while the businesses fail. To be honest, I didn't get why they were telling us about it over the radio because a) it doesn't affect us since we live in NZ and b) it's really not my problem. But apparently it's quite a big problem in China atm. Well, I guess it's interesting to hear about?
Which brings me to my next point, I really hate those kids of rich parents who waste their parents' money while they themselves have no 本事 (I can't think of the english word... like, ability? but I think it's a bit more than that ==) of their own to earn their own money, just living from their family's riches. I kinda feel sorry for their kids cuz when they grow up they'll have no money left because their spoilt parents spent it all and they don't know what to do because their spoilt parents never taught them anything either. Geez it pisses me off when the original first generation don't discipline their kids properly and spoil them just because they can... It's then that you get people like our family friend who imo loves his son too much, and lets him bum around at home after dropping out of high school, stealing his bank statements to borrow money, buying a car without asking him, and then crashing it into a pole... all this before his 20th birthday. Man, what a spoilt asshole. But of course he can get away with it all cuz his family is rich as. =_= I almost want to see him fail in life after his parents aren't around anymore and see what he does...
Girls Do The Top Part
Guys Do The Bottom Half.
since this is my blog and I do whatever the hell I want, I'm going to do both parts, based on what I might like if I were a guy hahaha. I'm not bi tho so it's probably off XD
MAKES YOU LIKE MORE = YES
MAKES YOU LIKE LESS = NO
YOU DONT CARE = DC
YOU DONT KNOW= DK
IF YOU'RE A GIRL
Is shorter than you: no
Taller than you: yes
Wears a grill: no
Dresses Gangsta: dc
Dresses Skater: dc
Dresses Athletic: yes unless he's fat then no... but if he's got athletic build it's more like YES PLEASE =P
Has green eyes: yes
Has brown eyes: dc
Has hazel eyes: yes
Has blue eyes: dc
Smokes cigarettes: no
Smokes weed: no
Drinks alcohol: dc
Plays sports: yes
Can skate: dc
Writes lyrics: dc
Smiles a lot: yes
Has bad manners in front of you: no
Has blonde hair: dc
Has brown hair: yes
Has black hair: dc
Has red hair: dc
Has spikey hair: dc
Has no hair: no
Has long hair: no
Has curly hair: dc
Has wavey-ish hair: yes
Good dancer: yes
Wears jewelry: dc
Piercings: 1 or 2 dc, >2 no
Tattoos: if it's cool, dc but if it looks bad then no
Muscles: yes as long as not like a bodybuilder
Six pack: ditto
Laid back: yes
Plays guitar: yes
Raps: dc
Can draw: yes
Has a tongue ring: no
Nipples pierce: LOL no
Hugs you: yes
Hugs from behind: yes
Creative: yes
Calls you just to hear your voice: who would say no to this..?
Goes to church: dc
Cusses a lot: dk
Is funny: yes
Kisses you out of no where: yes
- ------… --- ------… ------… ------… --- ------… ------… ------… --- -
IF YOU'RE A GUY
Has a nice butt: yes
Plays musical instrument: yes
Is taller than you: no
Is shorter than you: yes
Has green eyes: dk
Has blue eyes: dk
Has brown eyes: dk
Has hazel eyes: dk
Has long hair: yes
Has med. hair: dc
Has short hair: dc
Drinks alcohol: no
Smokes cig's: no
Has blonde hair: dc
Has brown hair: yes
Has black hair: dc
Has red hair: dc
Calls you just to say hi: yes
Creative: yes
Compliments you: yes
Shaves her legs: yes
Wears jewelry: dc
Has bigger feet then you: LOL, either dc or no...
Belly piercings: yes
Doesn't party: no
Does party: yes
Likes to party: yes
Laughs a lot: yes
Happy: yes
Funny: yes
Skinny: yes
Anorexic: no
Rides a street bike: dc
Tattoos: yes if it looks good, no if it doesn't
Honest: yes
Open: yes
Shy and quiet: no
Huge chest: no, average is good.
Licks lips: dc
Lightly bites bottom lip: ...yes? i guess it could be cute
Talks dirty: yes
Leaves you random comments: no. clingy ==
Competes with you: yes
I reckon I'd make an okay guy. =P hahaha anyway that's all for today, I think I'm blogging quite a lot lately (doesn't seem like anyone else is.... steph when was the last time you blogged??). Either I have a lot on my mind or real life is not stimulating enough to keep my attention so I come on my computer and talk to myself on blogspot. Yes I lead quite a sad life ):
25 June 2010
Fine lines
1. The difference between being honest and being an asshole.
When asked "Does this dress make me look fat?",
The nice friend says, "No, you always look pretty"
The honest friend says, "I don't think the colour suits you, you should try the same style in ___"
The asshole friend says, "Yeah you look like a fatass."
I think a lot of people have this idea that being blunt and honest = being an asshole. I've known some people who try to always be nice and then end up digging themselves holes because that's not what they really think (and we all know how hard it is to keep spinning a lie...), resulting in awkward moments... but it's okay to be honest, as long as you're being constructive. Obviously it's not good to be TOO blunt ie. being an asshole, but I think that being honest is very important.
I've found that girls especially try to go around doing things a lot because they want to be polite or something. Anyway I've heard from guys that it drives them crazy because they're never sure what girls want. Playing hard to get might be a warped form of this honesty thing too.... I never understood why girls want to wait for the guy to do everything without showing any signs of interest themselves... how would he know?! The squeaky door gets the oil :] And no, it doesn't make you easy or anything :l it's just common sense... when we want something we go get it right? What makes this any different...?
Also when it comes to problems, if you just act unhappy and don't let other people know exactly why, just sulk around, it's not going to solve your problem any faster. Waiting for other people to apologize is hardly constructive. Even if it was the other person who wronged you, I think there's a degree of courage and admirableness about being able to be the bigger person and trying to somehow rectify the situation. Sitting around pretending you're okay when you're obviously not is not practical!
When someone comes to you with a problem and ask for your honest opinion, you should give it to them. Don't try to sugarcoat it too much, but don't be harshly blunt either. It's a delicate balance, hence why I named this entry "fine lines"... Speaking from first hand experience as the person with the problem, I get pretty annoyed when the other person is obviously not telling the truth (and it's more obvious than you think) and trying to make everything happy happy. Let's be realistic, not everything ends up happily ever after in our lives. Bad things happen, and when they do we want a realistic piece of advice. Having said that, "lol you're fucked" is not exactly helpful either.
2. The difference between intelligence and knowledge
"You're so smart! You know everything!"
The above statement does not make logical sense to me. In my opinion, just because someone is smart doesn't mean they are necessarily knowledgeable, and just because someone is knowledgeable does not necessarily mean they are smart. Being knowledgeable just means you know a lot of things. Maybe that's what being wise is as well, having had lots of experiences and having knowledge about a lot of things. Being intelligent, I think, is something we are born with. The common sense and ability to absorb information... the actual ability and potential to learn is intelligence. The actual material learnt is knowledge. I'm not sure if that make sense, but that's what I think anyway.
Today, someone asked me, "Do you think that people who can't read, are totally illiterate, have bad grammar and ugly handwriting, unable to read music, don't have a proper education and don't know anything are failures at life?" I said no, and asked what if they'd just never had the opportunity to learn any of those things. She said that she thought they were still failures, because they were totally stupid and useless. I thought that was a bit harsh, and I still stand firmly by my point. The fact that they don't have any KNOWLEDGE does not = they are stupid. For all we know, they have the potential to become the next Bill Gates. Who, by the way, dropped out from college (well one can argue that that's a substantial degree of education, but I know some people who think people who haven't got a university degree from a top university are failures at life. narrowmindedness? I think so). I know a lot of elitists like that actually... people who think that unless you are THE BEST, you are a failure. I disagree. Life is full of experiences, and one person's idea of failure is never going to be universal, unless some kind of brainwashing and breach of human rights occurs. :]
Anyway back on topic, just because you have a lot of knowledge doesn't mean you are smart. Just like just because you are an expert on coffee mugs and know everything there is to know about them and collect them doesn't make you awesome, it just means you have too much spare time and not enough friends (lol jk, I love coffee mugs). And just because you are smart doesn't mean you are knowledgeable. Just like if you're Stephen Hawking and you don't know how to walk (lol jk okay sorry that was harsh, I love Stephen Hawking too). In the end though, if you are neither smart nor knowledgeable, then you sure as hell better have a good personality or are mega hot because I seriously can't think of any other way you can survive :l
3. The difference between having a third point and not
I originally had a third point to talk about but in my fervor in typing the above 2 I have actually completely forgotten what it was going to be. But I wanted to write 3 points because it's a nice round number. So, sorry guys. I think it's getting a bit long anyway hahaha.
29 April 2010
Unpacking Justin Bieber's (un?)popularity
So why exactly is Justin Bieber so popular? I think it's safe to say that he's loved by hoards of screaming girls at least, from the video of his arrival at Auckland airport taken 2 nights ago. At the same time there are countless facebook groups (yes I am citing facebook as a reliable source) that 'bash' him.
Many people can't see why he's so popular, what with his questionable intelligence (What's 'German'? I don't know what that means. We don't use that term in America.) and undeniable cockiness (The best thing about being famous is the girls; since I'm famous I can get any chick I want). At the same time, there are many who adore him and can't see why anyone would dislike him. So, I decided to see if I could unpack (crudely and amateurishly) exactly what kind of psychology is going on here...
Honestly, it could just be that he's a good singer who's around teenagers' age. If you look at any of the other guys who are 'hot' musicians, they're usually in their 20s and it's more like a 'dream crush' kind of thing rather than something that's actually plausible. But these girls may believe that they actually have a shot with JB because he's around our age, hence the more obsessive reactions.
But wait, teen idols in the past were never this popular. Jesse McCartney, Aaron Carter, both were 15-17 when they first became popular (and I have to stop here to add that Jesse McCartney was much MUCH hotter than JB will ever be), yet they never had screaming girls crying over them and stealing their hats. Why? Maybe people are just getting more obsessive in general. Maybe because they never did international tours so girls never got a chance to spaz as much over them. Maybe because they debuted in the time before internet communication became well connected, which is possibly a big factor for JB since he was found through youtube, and the medium that seems to be spurring hate/love is social networking sites where a lot of people gather in one place.
All that said, girls are a lot more obsessive about this than guys. REGARDLESS OF HOW HOT A GIRL IS, guys have NEVER been this obsessed with a girl. Recall twilight obsession... a lot of lovers, a lot of haters, very extremist fandom. mostly female. What is the most obsessed guys have been with anything on this scale? NEVER. Anything that came close was either megan fox (who, btw, has about 50/50 female/male ratio who think she's the hottest woman ever) or leah dizon.
Then again we must recognise that the more lovers something has, the more haters as well. It's almost like tall poppy syndrome in an indirect kind of obscure way. Basically, people start not liking something just because other people like it. Maybe in an effort to be 'different', but in doing this the whole thing blows up because you get extremist lovers and haters and a lot of namecalling and "YOUR OPINION IS STUPID" kind of things... And people come in to back up their friends' and their own opinion, leading to world war 3 over JB... no jk, but come on, it's getting ridiculous.
There is some degree of mob psychology going on here too. Think about it, one person says JB sounds like a girl and can't sing and a million do. The fact that he sounds like a girl, I'll admit, is a fact. But let's face it, he can sing. That's why he's famous. Honestly the empty insults are really quite sad; I'd bet that 99% of the people who say he can't sing can't sing even half as well as he can. JB is a good singer: He has almost perfect pitch, and can handle songs that many singers who are older than him cannot. The only thing is I feel like his voice is going to deteriorate from wearing it out so much and singing so high while he's young like Keita Tachibana's did (KT from w-inds, japanese band). Keita is still a good singer even tho he can't reach the octaves he used to be able to though, so it's not like JB will sound totally terrible after his voice breaks.
I'm not defending him, he's still cocky as and too short for the girls in his videos, but come on guys, let's not get so extreme over a kid who's our age. I doubt he cares so much about his haters, and haters breed lovers like lovers breed haters. As a bystander, I find that JB fangirls are about as annoying as JB haters. Putting someone down is a way of raising their popularity too, so let's not make such a big deal out of a guy who is, by himself, not that big anyway (pun totally intended).
22 February 2010
I WILL. I MUST.
I AM NOT ON FACEBOOK
I AM NOT PROCRASTINATING
I AM GOING TO GO AND TAKE A SHOWER
AND THEN DO MY HOMEWORK
I AM NOT LAZY. I AM NOT LAZY. I AM NOT LAZY. I AM NOT LAZY. I AM NOT LAZY. I LOVE DOING WORK. I LOVE DOING WORK. I LOVE DOING WORK. I LOVE DOING WORK. FRENCH AND CALCULUS IS BETTER THAN THE INTERNETS. I WILL FOCUS AND ACHIEVE EXCELLENCE THIS YEAR.
I LOVE SCHOOL I LOVE SCHOOL I LOVE SCHOOL I LOVE SCHOOL AND I LOVE BEING BUSY AND BEING HARDWORKING
I AM NOT LAZY
06 September 2009
16 February 2009
avoiding homework, respect.
I seem like a person who doesn't have a lot of things that she hates... and it's true. The one thing that can piss me off a lot, very fast is lack of respect. Lack of respect for anyone else's feelings, opinions, privacy...
goddamn. especially after being told you're crossing the line, and you continue to disrespect others. what is the world's problems? is it that parents are failing to teach their children properly? or society just doesn't give a damn about respecting itself anymore?
If you just go ahead and do something I don't like, that's okay if you don't know. But if after the first time I specifically tell you seriously that I don't like it, and you continue... that is disrespect. And if you continue 100+ times for the rest of your life, laughing at me every time I tell you not to, and then pin the blame on someone else, that is lack of disrespect, a want for a death sentence from me and just plain idiocy.
I will acknowledge if I disrespect anyone. Eventually, anyway. And if I don't, I will at least respect their opinion that I am disrespecting them, even if I don't think I am. Do unto others? whatever happened to this rule of society? I respect you, you come back and go through all my things, bother me when I have important things to do, continually do stupid things hazardous to my health, and in the end you laugh about it? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? not to mention noone else does anything about it either! You are not a little kid anymore, get over yourself! It's time to start taking responsibility for yourself, not just blaming everyone else around you!
sometimes I wonder how long it will be until you get this idea into your head. It's the real world here, if you don't take responsibility for your own actions noone else will. And if you try to shift the blame onto someone else, chances are there will be at least one person (I would hope) with morals around and then you will get your ass handed to you like it should have been a long time ago.
It's ok if you didn't understand this. I don't expect anyone to. I just can't sit around anymore, it's driving me crazy. If I wasn't so nice I would have taken you and smashed your head through a window already. You're lucky that someone else respects people around here.
Also, my internet is failing hard... 3kps internet? really? @__@ I blame my dad and his stupid movie downloads...
I should really do be doing art homework =.= so boring though. shells... really... siiiiigh.
goddamn. especially after being told you're crossing the line, and you continue to disrespect others. what is the world's problems? is it that parents are failing to teach their children properly? or society just doesn't give a damn about respecting itself anymore?
If you just go ahead and do something I don't like, that's okay if you don't know. But if after the first time I specifically tell you seriously that I don't like it, and you continue... that is disrespect. And if you continue 100+ times for the rest of your life, laughing at me every time I tell you not to, and then pin the blame on someone else, that is lack of disrespect, a want for a death sentence from me and just plain idiocy.
I will acknowledge if I disrespect anyone. Eventually, anyway. And if I don't, I will at least respect their opinion that I am disrespecting them, even if I don't think I am. Do unto others? whatever happened to this rule of society? I respect you, you come back and go through all my things, bother me when I have important things to do, continually do stupid things hazardous to my health, and in the end you laugh about it? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU? not to mention noone else does anything about it either! You are not a little kid anymore, get over yourself! It's time to start taking responsibility for yourself, not just blaming everyone else around you!
sometimes I wonder how long it will be until you get this idea into your head. It's the real world here, if you don't take responsibility for your own actions noone else will. And if you try to shift the blame onto someone else, chances are there will be at least one person (I would hope) with morals around and then you will get your ass handed to you like it should have been a long time ago.
It's ok if you didn't understand this. I don't expect anyone to. I just can't sit around anymore, it's driving me crazy. If I wasn't so nice I would have taken you and smashed your head through a window already. You're lucky that someone else respects people around here.
Also, my internet is failing hard... 3kps internet? really? @__@ I blame my dad and his stupid movie downloads...
I should really do be doing art homework =.= so boring though. shells... really... siiiiigh.
05 January 2009
impulsive update
"The New Zealand Yellow Pages are building a restaurant 10 meters up on a redwood tree. It is now under construction on a site north of Auckland. This tree restaurant is designed by Pacific Environments Architects. This treehouse concept gives you an expression of childhood dreams and fairy tales. It is inspired by the chrysalis/cocoon safeguarding the emerging butterfly/moth. It has a 60m tree-top walkway getting you up to the restaurant and inside there’s ample space for 18 seating people and staff and complete with a bar. The kitchen and the toilet will be located at the ground level. The acrylic sheeting fixed to the roof under the fins to get the protection for tough weather conditions."
sounds interesting O_o but really unsafe haha...
well, today my grandpa spent 30 mins giving me this big talk about how I should make use of my time while i'm young and before my brain corrodes to study so that I can have a good life (yes, the asian lecture.) and that just because I'm female I have to work 3 times as hard as any man. far out wtf is that? also told me about how hard parents work etc etc... and economic recession means that 'the family is going through a hard time'
what the hell, we own a 2 story house with computers and 2 widescreen tvs. if that's 'a hard life' I'd like to see what 70% of the world's population are living though.
also, because I'm a female, I'll have to deal with hardship with family vs work, face sexism and all that jazz. so yeah, he told me my life is gonna suck. thanks a lot.
in fact, this really scares me a lot because up til now I have never had any real problems. Life's actually been really cruisy compared to a lot of things I know. I'm lucky, I wasn't born in the 3rd world, I have food to eat every day, a bed to sleep in each night, my family is together, we have a house... I am grateful. but because of this, I am scared of the future. I have so much to lose. I have never experienced real pain or pressure, no hardships. Sometimes I dislike my parents for sheltering me so much. don't start with that "but you're winnie, you won't have any problems" bs. I am still human. I'm not just kidding around here, I know it's going to be hard. I just don't know how hard, and how I'm going to be affected.
"If you don't study now, how will you get scholarship into one of those big universities? harvard... princeton..."
What if I'm not interested? I'm 15, I don't know what I want. And I'm certainly not going to go to one just because of someone else. It's my life, I'll steer it in whatever direction I want. And if I can't live forever, I'll still want to be living for myself, not conforming to society or anyone else's expectations and wants. They pretty much have it imprinted in my mind that I'm definitely going to a big university, have a job that earns a lot of money, have children, live a normal life.
But come on, the chances of that happening? Life rarely goes in the direction you plan. Sounds simple now, but simple plans are the ones that are less likely to happen...
my train of thought was interrupted just now as I was wondering when school was restarting so I asked steph. hahaahaha weak willpower, can't even remember what else I was going to rant about.
on the other hand, I managed to do 3 days worth of kumon today. not bad right? unofficially finished K now, just have to do 181-200 again once and go one more time from 1-200 K review.
lets finish off with a story:
A student comes to a young professor's office hours. She
glances down the hall, closes his door, kneels pleadingly.
"I would do *anything* to pass this exam." She leans closer
to him, flips back her hair, gazes meaningfully into his eyes.
"I mean..." she whispers, "...I would do...*anything*."
He returns her gaze. "Anything?"
"*Anything*."
His voice softens. "*Anything*??"
"*Anything*."
----------------------------------------
..................
----------------------------------
.........
------------------------------------
..............
-------------------------------------------
.................
His voice turns to a whisper. "Would you...*study*?"
----Supposedly a 'true story' from Dartmouth
hehe, witty professor. (: anyway cya guys I'll blog again later when I actually have something to say.
sounds interesting O_o but really unsafe haha...
well, today my grandpa spent 30 mins giving me this big talk about how I should make use of my time while i'm young and before my brain corrodes to study so that I can have a good life (yes, the asian lecture.) and that just because I'm female I have to work 3 times as hard as any man. far out wtf is that? also told me about how hard parents work etc etc... and economic recession means that 'the family is going through a hard time'
what the hell, we own a 2 story house with computers and 2 widescreen tvs. if that's 'a hard life' I'd like to see what 70% of the world's population are living though.
also, because I'm a female, I'll have to deal with hardship with family vs work, face sexism and all that jazz. so yeah, he told me my life is gonna suck. thanks a lot.
in fact, this really scares me a lot because up til now I have never had any real problems. Life's actually been really cruisy compared to a lot of things I know. I'm lucky, I wasn't born in the 3rd world, I have food to eat every day, a bed to sleep in each night, my family is together, we have a house... I am grateful. but because of this, I am scared of the future. I have so much to lose. I have never experienced real pain or pressure, no hardships. Sometimes I dislike my parents for sheltering me so much. don't start with that "but you're winnie, you won't have any problems" bs. I am still human. I'm not just kidding around here, I know it's going to be hard. I just don't know how hard, and how I'm going to be affected.
"If you don't study now, how will you get scholarship into one of those big universities? harvard... princeton..."
What if I'm not interested? I'm 15, I don't know what I want. And I'm certainly not going to go to one just because of someone else. It's my life, I'll steer it in whatever direction I want. And if I can't live forever, I'll still want to be living for myself, not conforming to society or anyone else's expectations and wants. They pretty much have it imprinted in my mind that I'm definitely going to a big university, have a job that earns a lot of money, have children, live a normal life.
But come on, the chances of that happening? Life rarely goes in the direction you plan. Sounds simple now, but simple plans are the ones that are less likely to happen...
my train of thought was interrupted just now as I was wondering when school was restarting so I asked steph. hahaahaha weak willpower, can't even remember what else I was going to rant about.
on the other hand, I managed to do 3 days worth of kumon today. not bad right? unofficially finished K now, just have to do 181-200 again once and go one more time from 1-200 K review.
lets finish off with a story:
A student comes to a young professor's office hours. She
glances down the hall, closes his door, kneels pleadingly.
"I would do *anything* to pass this exam." She leans closer
to him, flips back her hair, gazes meaningfully into his eyes.
"I mean..." she whispers, "...I would do...*anything*."
He returns her gaze. "Anything?"
"*Anything*."
His voice softens. "*Anything*??"
"*Anything*."
----------------------------------------
..................
----------------------------------
.........
------------------------------------
..............
-------------------------------------------
.................
His voice turns to a whisper. "Would you...*study*?"
----Supposedly a 'true story' from Dartmouth
hehe, witty professor. (: anyway cya guys I'll blog again later when I actually have something to say.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)