The Internet vs. Real Life

Watch the above video before reading.

Okay, have you watched it yet? Good.

~~~

Ok, yeah I get the message. I just don't think it applies to me.

The world he's talking about is the one's that's been trying to shove itself in my face from day one. I never remember enjoying life as much as this guy seems to, even before the internet, cell phones and social media. Honestly, I feel like I've been waiting for the internet my whole life. I much prefer my internet life to my real one. The internet is what really opened my eyes to the world. Without it, the world would be unbearable to me. I look at the life this guy chooses to live, and I get flashbacks to the isolation and tedium of my life before I discovered the internet. I look at the life this guy desires, and I can honestly say that it looks utterly boring, despite all the fun that he seems to be having. And I'm happy for him - I'm glad he's found something. But that life is not for me. Maybe if I had the internet, a cell phone, and social media earlier in life, I would feel differently. But I was never allowed into the life I'm currently living until the latter years of high school, and by then, it was sick of the real world. So just as a kid who turns 21 sees alcohol as the forbidden fruit, to me, the internet, tv and video games were the forbidden fruit for most of my childhood. And these things will forever carry that stigma for me. Nothing about this video has convinced me otherwise.

I made a thing

I set the Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex opening theme song "Inner Universe" by Origa to the opening animation for the anime "RahXephon." Synced up surprisingly well.

Life, the Church, and Everything

Last week, I heard a minister say that "God loves life." And given how strongly the church has argued against abortion, contraception and gay marriage, this statement appears largely true. This week, a senator even made the statement to the effect that every incidence of pregnancy, even those that come from rape and incest, is a gift from God. Everything the church does seems to promote the idea that everything you do throughout your life should be helping you to go out and make more life - and as much of it as you possibly can. The feeling has even pervaded outside the church, from people asking men and women when they're going to settle down and start a family, to families that have boasted 10-12 children. Even in the realm of science, the inarguable purpose of our evolution seems to be to reproduce. In the old days, it wasn't uncommon for a man to remarry 3-5 times, each wife giving that man as many children as she can, from the year she hits puberty to the year she dies. And in the old days, when famine, disease, poverty, war and all manner of ills threatened to wipe out entire civilizations at every turn, this made absolutely perfect sense.

This year, the Earth's population has hit 7 billion. I assume you can guess where I'm going with this. Human beings have been giving birth for millenia. And given how many humans there are, we've obviously become remarkably good at it. Not just us humans, but every animal, plant and microbial life form today is here because of the miracle of birth. But while I'm not arguing at just how chemically and genetically improbable and amazing that birth can even happen at all, I do think it's rather an overstatement to call birth a "miracle" given how regularly it occurs, and as many teenagers can attest to, how easy and unexpectedly it can happen. In fact, with childbirth these days so easy and prevalent, and with the only thing plummeting faster than death rates being the resources needed to sustain those not dying, to put childbirth on such a pedestal as to call it a "miracle" is not only shortsighted but foolhardy. The need to go forth and multiply as it stands now, more than being non-applicable, is actually counter-productive to the overall health of the planet we live on. I know the belief of the church is that man has inherited the Earth to do with as he pleases, but make no mistake, the Earth will not support us for much longer if we keep devouring resources like it's going out of fashion.

But that's not even the main reason I'm writing this. Rather, I'm arguing that since the need to constantly, constantly reproduce no longer applies, at least for the time being, then it the notion of bearing children no longer takes precedent over human happiness. A person can afford to not be life-giving in every major decision they make about their lives. It doesn't always, always have to be about making babies all the time. We can actually do things with our baby-making body parts that don't result in a baby. And guess what? The human race won't die off as a result!

The human race as a species will keep on kicking if you decide not to have children in your lifetime. It will also continue onward if you decide you want to have safe sex. Other couples will in fact continue to have children if you should decide you're not ready and want to have an abortion. And the world will most certainly keep spinning if two people of the same sex decide to get married. And by the way, how is a gay couple getting married any different than an infertile couple getting married, in terms of life-giving relationships? And while we're pondering that puzzler, consider that if gay couples ever decide to adopt (and we manage to grow up and stop presuming that gay couples are unfit parents), how much of a great service they would be doing the world by providing a loving home to an otherwise forsaken child.

If you do want children, and can safely do so, by all means, have children. But you should, by no means, be required to do so by your government or your faith! In fact, no matter what your belief, you should always make the decision to have children with great prudence, because in case no one told you, a child is an enormous responsibility. Children come at great pains to the mother, at a great financial burden to both parents, and if the parents aren't healthy enough, fit or willing to be good parents, that child runs the enormous risk of growing up suffering and doomed to go down a troubled and unfortunate path. There are obviously exceptions to this, but if you want to gamble your life, your spouse's life, or the life of your child on those odds, then that's all on your head when you make that decision. We are human beings! We may not have all the answers, but we're smart enough to look to the future and realize that if a child is born into a particular situation, or of a mother who is too young, financially insecure, or worse, the victim of rape, that either the child, mother or both will not survive, or worse, be doomed to a life of misery and hardship, that in situations like these, we have the power and responsibility to change it.

Because - and please follow me here - there are worse things in this world than not having a baby!

No, we shouldn't all be mandated to suffer or die just to bring yet another life into being under any circumstance whatsoever. Not everything is about making babies! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby! Foster homes and shelters are filled to the brim with homeless children, and those who don't find homes usually end up in our prisons. And our prisons have become so full that it's become profitable to run them like a business! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby! Food, jobs, land, fuel and many, many other finite resources are already tapering out! If we bring many more children into this world, we're only putting more strain on our already dwindling resources. If we strain them too much more, there will be nothing left for the children we are so eagerly squirting out. And let's be clear: I am by no means denouncing childbirth entirely. If you are healthy, secure and ready to be a parent, then by all means, reproduce as much as you like! But are under no obligation to do so! There are worse things in this world than not having a baby!

The world doesn't need another baby right now! The only reason you should be having children is because you want to! And even if you do, you have options. Adopt! There are thousands, millions of children already born who need a home! Get married to the person you love regardless of whether your union can produce children! And if you don't want children at all, that's fine too! Have safe sex! Enjoy your life, regardless of whether you're having kids or not! And if you're not ready for a child and an accident does happen, you are not obligated to have that child if you have reason to believe it will ruin your life!

Because, say it with me now: There are worse things in this world than not having a baby!

Here's what confuses me: if God loves life, why would he require such terrible strains in order to produce it, when we could easily minimize those strains while maintaining a good balance of life in equitable conditions? Especially since the whole point of life, after creating more of it, is to die and go to the afterlife? To me, when there is not only such little need for prolific propagation of life in this age, but actual negative consequences to it, the argument to continue to propagate life sounds likes it's coming from institutions who stands to profit from such an overabundance of life.

A prison warden who cares only for lining his pockets for keeping more and more inmates; a business owner who has to pay his workers less and less because with all the competition for the jobs he's offering there will always be someone willing to work for less; political leaders who earn their votes from an uninformed electorate because our school systems can't afford to keep up with our surplus of children; our government who continue to throw more and more soldiers into war as cannon fodder; and yes, even a church whose uninformed masses continue to add more and more falsely acclaimed validity to an already overblown institution. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this level of atrocity still seems much more likely than a God who just loves life so much that he wants us to go to every imaginable length - from repeated painful, dangerous and possibly lethal childbirths, and the absolute inhibition of either enjoying sex for its own sake or for spending your life with your loved one if they happen to have the same parts as you - to have children just so they can go on and go through the same process, and all of whom only ever achieve their actual happiness in an afterlife that nobody can describe.

Which seems more likely to you?

A New Chapter - A Year in Retrospect

So it's been a while, a long while, since I updated this blog. Mostly because I know nobody reads it, but it might help to jot some thoughts down for now. It simulates having actual, meaningful conversation, instead of just shooting the breeze like I do with most of the people I speak to. And this isn't to say the people in my life don't invite conversation, it's just me being reclusive and not believing anyone would truly understand.

As of now, I've been working at Pitt for about a year. The past year has seen some breathtaking changes for me. Within a year, I've gone from having practically no money in the bank and relying on my parents for food, clothing and shelter, to earning an annual salary with money in savings. Within a year, I've moved into my own apartment, started buying my own food, cooking for myself, cleaning for myself, and having to worry about a dozen things having to do with keeping my life together. And within a year, I've started going to the gym on a regular basis, managed to drop ten pounds, and even start running. Today, I ran a mile in seven and a half minutes.

It's come at a cost though. I don't know if it's just the summer lull, or the fact that I'm not in school anymore, but I feel like I don't get to do much with my friends anymore. I still see people - Thursday nights, I see some friends from Pitt for movie night, Friday's (usually), a group of friends from CCAC for D&D or something social, and starting next month, every other Saturday will see me gaming with another group from CCAC. And Sunday, for the last year and a half, I've been gaming with another group from Pitt. So it would seem that I'm getting my share of social activity in.

Yet still...I don't know. It doesn't feel like it's enough. Maybe it's because school's not in session, and anime club isn't going on - which would add another night to that list. Maybe it's because two or three of those aforementioned meetups have been skipped for the past week or more - either by me or by DM ruling. Maybe - and this is something that might really become an issue later - it's because I don't have anything in common with my coworkers. Everyone in my office is either married with kids, or at the equivalent age. But I don't even seem to have anything in common with the student workers either, who are closer to my age group. One is even a film studies major. But she's quiet as a mouse, and every time I approach her, I get the feeling that she's either intimidated by me, or creeped out.

It doesn't help that I'm hyper sensitized to just this reaction from people. Ever since I started going to Falk at age 5, and I was identified with the moniker of "booger-breath," people have generally avoided me. I don't know if it's out of shyness, their own self-consciousness, but every time it happens, I can't help but feel that I repulse them somehow. Maybe I didn't shower well enough that morning, maybe I didn't put on enough deodorant. Maybe my clothes don't fit me right, and they make me look like a fat slob. Maybe I am a fat slob - God knows dieting and exercise haven't changed that. With a barrel chest atop ballet dancer legs, I'm about as awkward and unbalanced and gangly as one of those creepers you see on the bus. Every time I look in the mirror, all I can see is a creeper. Nothing I do seems to change that, and everyone around me seems to, even if unconsciously, reinforce that belief whether it's true or not. I'm not even saying that I believe it is true - but it would sure help my self confidence level if people acted like they genuinely wanted to be around me.

This got off track real fast, but really, I have nothing positive left to say. Maybe I need to see a therapist. All I can say is, I wish I wasn't so sensitive. I wish I didn't care. I wish I could just let it roll off my shoulders, I'd be so much happier of a person. But I can't. I get so jealous seeing people being open and honest with each other, and seem genuinely happy to be around each other. I get so jealous when someone can speak their mind, and people will actually listen to them. I get so jealous when I see people who get noticed at all! If I'm ever noticed, it's usually so that I can be avoided. Failing that, I don't get noticed at all, or worse, just simply ignored.

I wish it didn't bother me. I wish I didn't care. But I do. I feel so dis-empowered to do anything about this. I feel like it's me against the world. And the world is kicking my ass.

Amazing Video

Homophobia, Sexism and Gender Roles

I had another sociological thought. I don't know whether or not this thought is unique, old news, or completely baseless, but here it is.

Homophobia isn't just homophobia. What homophobia also implies is a rejection of the shifting gender roles that non-heterosexuality represents. Or, to put it more crudely, if you're a homophobe, you're also probably a sexist.

Think of it this way - what do you think of when you hear the expression "boys will be boys?" Ladies, how many of you would actually have a good time at a golf course, a sports bar or a gentleman's club? Guys, do you ever wonder why girls always seem to go to the bathroom in packs? There are certain expectations that come with being a boy or a girl, at least in the western world, and they seem largely inescapable to a lot of people, and more importantly, have been the norm for the better part of a generation.

To include homosexuals in the heterosexual majority's definition of gender roles would be to confuse decades  of sexual identity. To the majority, men were people who watched football, drank beer, lit their farts on fire, and were plagued with the uncontrollable desire to get into womens' pants. To the majority, women were people who were wanted to dress nicely, keep a domestic household, were naturally nurturing and caring, and all wanted a decent man to settle down with. If you find these stereotypes insulting, that's good - so do I.

The problem for people that grew up steeped in these gender roles is that, for the longest time, homosexuality was considered an oddity, a fluke in the system, a life-choice, something that wasn't accepted, and generally treated like a defect - anything except as part of the norm. When the 70's hit, however, and the civil rights movement made the issue more widely known, and over the years, equal rights' activists began petitioning for equal treatment of gays, the heterosexual majority is faced with the possibility of  these "oddities" suddenly becoming part of the norm. Suddenly, the definitions of "man" and "woman" has to be slightly, but oh so unacceptably altered to accommodate men who weren't interested in women and women who weren't interested in men. So much of our gender roles revolved around the things we did to attract mates, that to change that, even just to accommodate different views, turns the entire world upside for people who grew up knowing only heterosexual gender roles.

And here's where the sexism comes in. For the longest time, particularly in the workplace and the professional world, the rules, the styles and the norms have been dictated by men, and generally represented masculine sensibilities. When women attempt to move up in the workplace, it usually has to be according to men's rules. She'll often wear a suit, and most of the time, and coworkers she will be speaking to and negotiating will be men, introducing the possibility of sexual harassment and abuse. She earns less money on average, and will hold fewer roles of authority as men, not to mention maternity leave. And this is all because the rules of game, as it were, have been created and dictated by men to create an environment suitable for men to thrive and succeed, without any regard for the feminine viewpoint.

And this will probably stay largely unchanged, even if the number of working men and women in the professional western world were completely equal, because the people in charge want it this way. The system is run by men who follow rules set by men to appeal to masculine sensibilities. If there were more women in power, these rules and norms would change, even if only slightly, and allow for a blend of rules and norms that appeal to both masculine and feminine sensibilities. But this won't happen, at least for a while, because women are at a distinct disadvantage having spent most of history in the back seat.

But what if the definition of masculinity itself were to change? What if the world of men were to suddenly shift to accommodate men who weren't really all that interested in which sports team won last week, or who the latest girl is on the cover of Maxim magazine? Homosexuality threatens the male power in places like the workplace because it allows non-masculine values to pervade into the very men the system is designed to empower. In the mind of the male majority, women are rather easy to segregate. This is not as true for homosexual men.

And therein lies the issue: to the heterosexual majority, homosexuality mixes up gender roles. Having spent an entire lifetime keeping men and women separate in their minds, and having to suddenly deal with what amounts to girly men and butch women. This is not to say that these stereotypes are the reality, but it makes little difference in the mind of the heterosexual majority. The easiest coping mechanism is, of course, to reject homosexuality, and anything else that doesn't fit into their heterosexual gender roles. A generation of men in the office don't want to have to deal with the fact that their male co-worker may have more in common with Suzy down the hall then with them. And the unfortunate women of that generation, who were cowed by their parents and teachers into their narrow gender roles, are presented with a troubling conundrum: either the roles pushed upon them were meaningless, outdated, and sexist, making their entire life's struggle seem unnecessary...or homosexuality is just a fluke and their gender roles are exactly what they thought they were. It's almost always easier to reject change than to reject your own reality, and that's not even getting into the religious aspect.

Homophobia is sexism taken to its logical conclusion. Sexist men don't want to tolerate women stepping into their world, so naturally, they wouldn't want to tolerate men who (in their minds) act like women stepping into their world either. Being as offended as they are by femininity in women, is it really so hard to believe that a chauvinist would feel the same way towards femininity in men?

And this needs to change. Is a world ruled by people who only acknowledge a part of its people as people really a good world for all people? More to the point, does our view of ourselves, as men and women, really change all that much if we include gays and lesbians and everything in between?

Does "masculine" necessarily have to be synonymous for "likes women?" Does feminine also have to mean "likes men?" And more importantly, do we want these terms to mean these things? These terms hold only as much meaning as we allow them to have. With as many people as there are, even just in the western world, it's impossible to escape the hold of labels. Can we at least agree on what these labels mean? Because we've all been labeled, and whether you realize it or not, you use labels constantly. And if you're using labels knowingly, use them wisely. Doing so is essentially drawing a line in the sand between people you consider "normal," and people you consider "abnormal," and thus, "sub-human." And if you're going to put entire gender roles in the latter category, all you're really doing is labeling yourself as a "bigot."

Creativity

I define creativity as more than just a love for a particular craft. What I feel isn't the longing to write for the sake of writing. For me, the result is what counts. When I feel creative, what I feel is that there is something lacking in the world. There is something, something very specific, that need to exist. And it doesn't exist yet, so I need to create it. By any means necessary. Writing just happens to be how I do it.