I need to write about what happened, but this isn't for you

So at the end of August, my ex effectively terminated any and all positive feelings I may have had towards him. He send me the nastiest fucking email I've ever read, and the only way I can make sense of it is that he wanted me to hurt like he did (this was out of character and was why I had posted in September that I wasn't going to do this anymore). Accused me of hurting him on purpose. Referenced a whiny Alanis Morisette song. Accused me of "replacing" him (my breakup with him had exactly nothing to do with Redbeard, and that's the last I'll mention of him in this post). And I've been furious about it.

Let me be clear- the fury comes and goes. Seeing him on campus sends me into a rage, especially in the science buildings. It's like- get out, these are my buildings, I am the science one, you need to fucking leave.

The whole thing was extremely childish. He knows I never meant to hurt him, I gave him sincere apologies, and if he didn't want to believe them, there's nothing I could do. I did not owe it to him to help get over the breakup with me, that was not my job as a friend, you did not have the right to learn about the new things happening in my life in regards to relationships because I knew they would hurt you. So you went on here, read that I had found somebody new, and instead of seeing the entry where I had written that the last thing you deserved was to be hurt, you thought that my finding somebody new instantly meant I thought nothing of you. Which is the most selfish, ridiculous thing I've ever heard. That wasn't what was happening, but you had to make it alllll about you, didn't you?

I've been sitting and stewing on this a lot lately, which is how I know I'm probably going to be rid of it soon. I'm so angry that you got to hurt me and have the final word, but I wasn't about to sink to your level, and I'm still not going to. I'm mad at you, and I have every right to be. You lashed out to purposefully hurt me and did not apologize. I tried misguidedly to protect you and apologized for it many times. I am sorry I hurt you, but that wasn't my intention, but your intention with that email was absolutely to hurt me. You wanna think about that for a minute? What that says?

Like, congratulations! You decided to act like a kindergartener with the logic of "you hurt me, so instead of being the bigger person, I'm going to hurt you back." There were a MILLION better ways to burn this bridge. You could have said "I'm sorry, we can't be friends anymore, I can't do this anymore, I don't want to talk about it, don't talk to me again." That would have stung, but it would have stung less than deciding to lodge yourself, in the shape of a knife, firmly between my shoulder blades. I'm still trying to fucking heal and I hate you for that. It seems clear from the time I saw you following that other girl to the class after mine that you've moved on.You took all your pain and inability to heal and dumped it on me instead. How thoughtful of you. I wanted to grab that girl and warn her- stay away from him, you want to hear what he did to me?

Look, I'm sorry we didn't talk much. I didn't know what to say. Maybe I should have explained that to you, but you could also not have jumped to the conclusion that I hated you. I mean, what the fuck? "We don't talk much anymore. Is there a reason for that?" would have been, y'know, the adult thing to do. Like, oh my GOD, dude, what the hell??

You know what's funny? I still wonder what your mom thinks. Whether you told her this entire drawn out story and made her hate me, or whether she saw what was really going on and is disappointed in you for sinking to such a pathetic level as to attempt to hurt me for what I "did" to you. I'll never know. That makes me sad. It's not like I haven't debated sending her your email on facebook, just to see if she knew about it or not. But it's better not to. I don't want you to know that I even exist anymore.

Furthermore, I don't want to know anything else about your life. I don't want to know if you've met some other girl, I don't want to know if you're still miserable, I don't want to know if you still go to our school, if you're still getting a degree, if you're still in this city. I want you out, out, out. It's like sucking out the poison from a snake wound, even if I'm told that's what you're not supposed to do. All my memories of you are poison now, and you did that. Congratulations. You hurt another human being. Are you happy with yourself?

Are you proud of yourself now? Does this make you happy? Is this what you wanted? Is this who you wanted to be?

I've been sitting on this entry for ages. I feel like I can't rant to anyone. Writing about it privately doesn't help. I need to get this OUT, I need to be free of it. I don't want to be bothered by it anymore. I am so done. This is old news. This is annoying. This hurt has no place in my life anymore, and I am trying my very best to be at peace with it.

I know you'll never read this; I don't want you to. This isn't for you. This is just... a public declaration to the world. On this blog, I've always found it comforting that anyone could read this, even if no one did. It's the could that helps me, heals me. I'm hoping this post will allow me to let go, let all this hurt float away into the sky like a balloon until it bursts somewhere high and far away from here, and is no more. I guess posting this feels like revealing evidence. Our relationship got rough near the end, and I made some mistakes, and I'm sorry. I told you that and I meant it. I did not meant to hurt you. I guess you didn't believe me.

Honestly, I could fill this post with a million nasty thoughts. But I don't want to do that. Those thoughts are very obviously private- they're not something you air out in public. Sometimes we don't like other people, sometimes we want to hurt them because they have hurt us. But I'm trying to do what you couldn't-be the bigger person. So I'm sorry I hurt you. I hope the rest of your life is.. I dunno. OKish. Whatever. Just leave me alone.We're not friends anymore, and I'm not going to forgive you and let you back into my life. We're just done. That's it. The End, as your email was so dramatically titled. The end.

-swegan

Hierarchy

This whole boy fiasco, lovely as it has been, has forced me to confront a rather unfortunate way of thinking. It seems I picked it up about 8 years ago, and despite how far I've come since then, I still can't get rid of it.

See, I told the boy that he was the first normal boy to like me. Which is, of course, ridiculous, as normal is a stupid concept with no meaning and no clear definition and one that is used to make people feel like outsiders. You're not normal. The reason I said it was because he is the first boy to like me who isn't incredibly nerdy. You know, the video game playing, slightly antisocial, obsessed-with-things-like-star-wars kind of boys. Nerds. Geeks. And I had decided oh, okay, these are the only kinds of boys that I'm ever going to get to be with, and that's okay, they're not so bad, and I guess I'm pretty nerdy too. Only the thing is, there's a lot of girls out there way nerdier than me, and they fit with those boys a hell of a lot better than I do.

But some part of my brain is still 12 years old, because I was phrasing this to myself in the way of normal boys don't like me. They never will. That's ok. Which is fucked up, because what I was really saying was I would really like to date a boy who isn't obsessed with video games but I am convinced that that is never going to happen based on extremely limited past experience.

Those boys that I would be able to date, from what I can tell, were not popular in school. They're the stereotypical losers, the ones that always get teased in movies, the ones that get told no girl will ever like them. My mom used to say that the boys that liked me probably did because I was nice to them, and nobody is ever nice to them, much less any girl, was the unspoken end of the sentence. This was probably true then, but it's an incredibly fucked up way to think now. And through this, I thought, this makes sense: I am a loser like them, I am not normal, I don't fit in. I always wanted to have one of the boys who did fit in, but I had convinced myself that that was never going to happen because I didn't fit in and that didn't happen and it's really amazing how I only spent three years of my life being classified as a loser and yet how badly I internalized it.

If there's anything high school and subsequently university and the real world have taught me, it's that thinking of people in this way gets you nowhere. You miss out on opportunities to get to know really cool people by being a judgemental asshole who looks down at people who are different. And the people I admired, the people I really liked, never seemed to care. They'd befriend anybody, no matter what they looked like or what their hobbies were or how weird or abnormal or whatever they might be. And when I first got to high school, I was still trying to look down on people who might be weirder than me, still trying to convince myself that I wasn't at the very bottom, and I met people who didn't think that way and accepted me as I was and that was a big shift for me.

Now this is happening. I'm thrilled that it's happening, and I'm trying very hard to work through this shit, because I feel awful for thinking this about people- thinking there are normal people and losers- and thinking it about myself- that I'm still not one of the normal ones. Now it comes through when I realize I don't know how to be a girl "correctly", I never did, I never naturally went to makeup and fashion, I never got that. I still don't. So I stand behind these girls in the elevator of my building, with their perfect hair in cute hairstyles they somehow picked up, their flawless makeup done with skills they somehow picked up, their artfully matched clothes, popular yet their own, done in a style that they somehow picked up, and I know girls like that can be perfectly nice but some of them still give me looks like I got when I was 12 and it just sucks because I'm standing there in jeans and a t-shirt and big ugly boots and my bangs are stuck to my forehead, which is covered with zits I don't know how to hide because I never learned how, and my hair is pulled back in a shitty braid because I keep it long and never know what to do with it. And I feel like a loser all over again, and I think, he must like girls like this, girls who know how to be girls, girls who know what they are doing, and then it turns out that no, no, people aren't as fake as I think they always are, people are capable of liking people like me because there's nothing wrong with me in the first place, and people are better than I give them credit for most of the time.

I don't know why unlearning this is so hard. I don't know why I still act this way, like I have to put myself above people who are even more "loserly" than me in an effort to get up with the girls who know how to be girls. Because it's mean, and petty, and stupid, and costs me a lot of meaningful relationships. But it is effort for me still to live in the real world and not look at their world as pretty and perfect and beautiful. Even if it is, I have to not care. My life will not be any better if I figure out how to apply eyeliner and wear those long, layered necklaces, and learn to french braid my hair. My life will not be any better if I go out drinking with them, and party with them, and study the way they do. My life doesn't necessarily improve if I learn how to "be a girl" better.

My life is already filled with real and interesting people, who aren't just pretty pictures. They are their own people, they are kind and smart and generous, and they are real and warm and loving. I don't live on a magazine cover. I don't know why I keep feeling like my life is empty when it's so full.

But this is what's behind all that, behind me just saying "He's normal, and he likes me." He's not normal, neither am I, and yet we both are. We're human. We're people. We're falling in love with each other. I need to let that be enough.

Maybe, though, just maybe, this is what finally gets me over this way of thinking. The boys I dated before were perfectly good boys, they were kind and caring and sweet and didn't wish me harm, we just didn't work. For both of them, I wish only the best, and the nicest, kindest, nerdiest girls who will love all the shit they do.

yer pal,
swegan

Edit: I should probably give those girls in the elevator more credit, too. The nastiest they've been to me so far is just the looks, nobody's ever said anything mean to my face, and they did welcome me into their group at one point. I don't know what kind of people they are, I just know that they look at me like people who were nasty to me once.

And they're still there getting degrees alongside me, they have just as much a chance as greatness as me. The universe doesn't owe me anything for all the shit I put up with, and despite how much they tell you the popular kids won't succeed- oh, they will. They'll be right there next to you. And that kind of sucks to think about.

There's this kind of girl at school

I don't know why I'm throwing people into groups here, but I am.

But there's these girls at school, and I've noticed they all dress... the same. Like not exactly the same, but they all have the same style of coat and the same style of leggings and the same pattern on their knit sweaters... the same overloaded backpack, and the same lululemon shopping bag repurposed as a lunch bag.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being this way, I've just noticed that a lot of girls tend to do this. And their hair is always fashionably messy, and their makeup is always done but they never use a lot, and they're always really smiley and just... everywhere. Why. Why are there so many.

And they're always in sciences, too. I see them in my science classes, I see them in my building complaining about the difficulty of the ochem course that I'm also taking. (To be fair, ochem is actually really hard). They're just so.. perfect. Put together. Like their life is busy, but they still find time to look artfully busy.

Those are actually the girls that scare me, because if they have the same course load as me and they still have time to put themselves together and do SOME kind of physical activity (I've noticed that people who have those lululemon bags tend to shop there (der), and thus tend to be physically active in some way), then they're the ones I have to be worried about. They're ambitious, their parents are probably also helping them out a little, and when they study, they go hard. They're the ones I'll be competing against someday, and for them, "taking it easy for like 5 minutes" doesn't seem to be an option.

In my mind, these are the girls who get really really good grades on all of their midterms and make it look like it's easy to study as much as they do. They show up on test day or on the day of the final still looking artfully messy and stressed. Oh, and they always smell really good, or at the very least, they never smell bad. And they all have the same kinds of lunches- water and lots of fruit or a salad packed into a tiny little container. and then like, some health granola bar. And they eat it all neatly with their perfectly painted fingernails and I'm over here scraping spaghetti out of a kid's thermos (not that i stole one, just that the one my mom bought me was designed for kids) with a metal fork, trying not to cringe at the noise with my stress-acne and my slightly-too-small pink ski jacket.

I'm just so confused. How do they do it? How do they all have the same messy topknot and the same black backpack with all the zippers and the same green jacket that everyone has and the same fucking lululemon shopping bag repurposed as a lunch bag???? Is this a thing? Is it popular to dress this way and have your eyeliner always looking fucking awesome even though you're not wearing a lot of it? Just... how? HOW?? HOW??

And their writing. they all use colourful pens and have the same big round letters, and they take SCADS of notes, way more than i do with my one black pen and crappy 5% cursive. and their stuff is always neatly organized in those half-binder-half-notebook things from 5 star. one per subject. and there's no mess anywhere. I just shove things in a clipboard.

I just... I don't know if this is a common thing, or if I'm just seeing the same 10 girls around campus all the time b/c they have a lot of the same classes as me, and then i'm also seeing them in my building again later.

I'm probably just making this all up in my head, but I mean, what else would you expect from someone described as "the girl scraping spaghetti out of a children's thermos with a metal fork in her slightly-too-small pink ski jacket"?

yer pal,
swegan

Feminism, definition, and criticism

I think I'm finally getting the hang of being on tumblr.

A lot of the time, I feel afraid to criticize anyone. People who claim to be feminist who are radical, especially, since those people are the types who pull the victim card, argue that you're triggering and oppressing them (I may be a member of an oppressive class to them, sure, but sometimes that seems really irrelevant, like being a member of an oppressed class doesn't free you from fucking up or make you immune to criticism). But I also feel afraid to criticize those who say things like "We don't need feminism anymore" or that feminism has turned into a hate movement- the same people who complain about "not all men" (which perhaps may be valid, perhaps feminists need to clarify that statement a little more) but then turn around and point out the actions of extremist feminists and act like those actions of an extremist few mean the movement as a whole is bunk and ridiculous.

I've got news for those people: feminism comes from a history fraught with racist and classist issues, not to mention a shitton of eugenics, holy fucking crap. Eugenics EVERYWHERE. And obviously not all of those issues are gone.

My issue with feminist criticism is ... well, actually, I have no issue with valid, logical criticism of feminism (especially when coupled with suggestions for how feminism could improve!) but I find that most of these (this is just in my experience) come from people who already identify as feminist and have for a long time and who place great value in the movement. To me, those people want to see feminism change for the better, to make it more valuable and relevant. People who actively claim not to be feminists who criticize the movement to me don't have the same aim. Why would they be interested in making feminism better if they're not a part of it anyway? To me, saying "I'm not a feminist" and then critiquing feminism means your aim must be to destroy it, to obliterate it, to say "anything good it accomplished was in the past" and move on to some other movement (that probably has the exact same goals anyway).

And I can acknowledge that receiving or even making critique of a field you love and support and care about deeply can be really, really hard. Because to you, this movement is great and wonderful and of course you don't want to admit that some part of it might be wrong! But I think it's important that feminism critiques itself (mainly the ways in which it is presented) in order to change and improve.

This is frustrating because it's so hard to define feminism. It almost seems like everyone has their own separate definitions- although I think one of gender equality and the expanding of genders beyond the binary is kind of where it's at. I think it tends to focus on women's issues because feminism was a movement borne out of women calling attention to their issues. It was borne of suffrage, of critique of political rights, of a lot of critique of marriage as an institution, etc etc.

And you can't say "feminism doesn't just get to include issues of race too that's not fair" because it's literally impossible for feminism to be valid without it being intersectional. My experience as a woman is likely very coloured by my skin colour and class and many other factors. Different women experience sexism differently, and it's really important to keep that in mind. Without that you often just end up with a bunch of women like myself- white, upper class, heterosexual, able bodied, etc- trying to solve their problems while neglecting the problems that other women face. That's not fair, and that certainly isn't inclusive. Of course feminism focuses mainly on gender issues, but it also acknowledges that issues of race, class, and many others cut through that. Identities are complex.

And I'm getting really tired of people saying feminism doesn't care about men's issues (it does and goddamn that needs to be publicized more), or worse, that feminism caused men's issues. Feminism opposes the same shitty social structures that mean men are incapable of being emotional or caring or sweet or timid, because those same shitty social structures mean that women, no matter what they are, are kind of always laughed at, whether they are emotional, caring, sweet, or timid OR brash, loud, opinionated, and aggressive.

That is also why to me, feminism has the "femin" bit. Because if a man successfully fulfills all his societal duties, and is the perfect replica of all the descriptors we associate with masculinity, then he is socially rewarded. He is a real man, good for him. But if a woman does the same, fulfills her societal duties and is a perfect replica of her descriptors, she's "weak" and "irrational" and "too emotional to ever be in charge of anything" (except running a home and raising children, apparently). If she fulfills all the male characteristics, she's too much- too loud, too opinionated, too career-driven, too bossy. If men don't take time to help out with the raising of their children, that's almost commonplace (although I'd like to think it's becoming less so now), but god forbid a woman do the same.. but if she stays at home to raise kids, she's "just a homemaker."

This is what bothers me. We've set up a system in which men can only win (i.e. be accepted, something along those lines) by fitting this narrow, constrictive mold... but at the same time, women can't win, even if they fill their mold. So it's obviously unfair to both parties, but at the same time, one party still has a chance. That's what strikes me as unfair. Men should be allowed to fulfill whatever role they feel most comfortable in, but so should women. We should all be winning. This doesn't mean you have to like everyone else on the planet, it just means they can't be unfairly held back by their gender OR how their gender is performed. That's really shitty and restrictive and sucks for everyone. Plus, it sets up systems where people (women especially) are taught to be jealous of those around them who better fulfill those characteristics, and it also seems like it would result in a lot of identity crises. It just doesn't work. It's silly, it's arbitrary, and it doesn't work.

My thoughts are that after some kind of social system is established in which people feel free to fulfill whatever characteristics they want, gender will become kind of arbitrary. What makes me a woman anyway? What makes someone a woman? It isn't their genitals, because then what about trans people? What about people born with genitals that aren't one of two sets? It doesn't work. Obviously you can still define people by biological sex, but gender is a really, really weird thing. It affects so much of our lives, and that pisses me off.


On a final note, I had an interesting idea about job/school applications (or applications for anything in general, really). I think it would be neat to set up a system in which people's names, ages, and races were completely left out of an application, and the only way to pick an applicant was solely on their merits. Obviously you'd need some way to contact them- I think a phone number could work for that, or even an email which is vague and gender neutral. Really I think that would eliminate a lot of discrimination... but then I don't know. I also thought it solved the problem of "affirmative action" because you can't select people based on their gender or race. It's more merit-based than based on whether or not your gender or race has historically been accepted to that position/school/institution/whatever...and obviously there would still have to be interviews... hmm. I didn't think of that. Any thoughts?

yer pal,
swegan

Tumblr

It certainly has its issues.

I think a big part of that depression earlier for me was tumblr feminism. It's so... cutthroat. I constantly worried that I was doing things wrong. I'd watch tumblr feminists tear apart people they disagreed with at the seams, and I was so afraid that might happen to me if I toed out of line, so I spent my time arguing with people close to me, pushing their manifestos and refusing to back down. It was exhausting. I mean, I get that those people have either experienced a lot of oppression personally and that that has made them angry and jaded to the point where they lash out, or they have developed a complex where they feel they have the right to do that... I'm not going to sit around and argue that fat people, non-white people, trans people, and lgbtqa (that is the correct acronym, right?), and women don't have their unfair share of difficulties, but still.

This isn't to say the community on tumblr is bad. I think it's done some great things- like providing a safe place for people to vent their frustrations, especially if those people aren't very "mainstream" and feel worn down by everyday life. I think that's important, that people who aren't lucky like me who are born with immense privilege (with the exception of my being female, which, thankfully, due to the part of the world I live in, hasn't held me back much... yet, anyway) have a space to vent, to feel validated, etc. That is definitely important, and I support that.

But I also feel like at certain times, that community cannot handle criticism. Whenever somebody makes a point that, while perhaps not entirely correct, still raises an important issue, people who have created those communities can get really defensive. We're not doing anything wrong, you're just persecuting us because you can get away with it. Maybe that's the case, but I think there are some issues with that community sometimes.

I know it's ridiculous to ask for inclusion in a community created solely to provide a haven for people who aren't included in the mainstream. But the mainstream sucks, and some of us get that- and we'd much rather stick with the people who say "screw the system" and try to create a better way. But I think sometimes that message of "we have a better way" is their way of saying "it's our turn." My problem is, equality doesn't work like that. You don't take turns having the advantage- that's not equality at all.

What Ptarckas suggested when I brought this up with him was that those communities can prioritize. Take feminism, for example. It is completely unreasonable for feminism as a movement to focus entirely on the ways the... we'll call it "the mainstream", has affected women and women only. In order for this movement to be inclusive, it must also discuss the ways men are affected. The exception here would be that feminism can prioritize women's issues. While both women and men are negatively affected by the mainstream (I guess feminists would call that patriarchy, and it is a word I have used before, and I still stand by that- but I'm trying to reach a wider audience here), women have had it far worse, and while men can choose to benefit from the system that's in place, women cannot, or at least not to the same degree. So to me, prioritizing women's issues above men's while still making time to discuss their issues as well is the best way forward. Or perhaps there are people who prefer to focus solely on one or the other, and that's fine. I think as long as men's issues don't overshadow women's, or interrupt discussions of women's issues, then that's okay. I suppose the reverse has to be true as well, but I still think a priority on women's issues is more than fair.

What really brought this issue up with me today was a post I saw on tumblr (obviously). It was an ask where someone had asked what the user thought of "skinny shaming" in Nicki Minaj's song "Anaconda." (The "skinny bitches" thing seems to be becoming popular with the body-positive community- and I really don't like it). The user's response was that "skinny people should stop listening to her song and go watch TV or read a magazine to see their body type idealized and praised." While I don't want to say this one user is the only problem- I'm sure plenty of people have this attitude- I really don't like that statement.

I know it's ridiculous of people who have been held up as "normal" and "beautiful" by beauty standards to ask for inclusion in a community created for those who did not fit those standards and have suffered because of it, but that is what I am asking for. I'm asking that the body positivity movement recognize that you cannot call yourself inclusive unless you include everybody. I'm not asking for my issues to be discussed- at the moment, I don't have any, beyond the "skinny bitches" attitude which I really hate (some people are just naturally thin- while that does give us privilege, it doesn't give you the right to stereotype us all as "bitches" that subscribe to mainstream beauty ideals).

I actually DO think the body positivity movement has been one of those movements that's been really good about being inclusive, about saying "you cannot have equality if you exclude one group of people." It was really just this one incident, in addition to the fact that all "body positive" songs that have come out recently that I've seen have included a line about "skinny bitches." I mean, I get that a lot of skinny people do subscribe to mainstream beauty ideals, do put down others for it, and I can understand why people who've felt like they've been excluded their entire lives, who have felt shamed and teased and bullied, wouldn't want to include people in their group that fit so well with their... bullies, I guess. I get that- it is part of why I was so defensive of feminism being a place for women's issues only for a long time. But, I think part of trying to start over means you have to try and trust those from the old group who come to you asking to be included. I think it means you have to be the bigger person sometimes- not all the time, but sometimes. You have to be the more mature one... and it sucks. It really does.

What was hard for me in all of this is admitting that I think I took things a bit too far sometimes. I still think what I was saying was important, I was just ... somehow saying it in a way that was too extreme. This is not to absolve the blame of others, either, just myself.  Besides, being that hardcore was no fun, and I'd like to think I've backed down a little. That's not entirely fun, either, but it's working out for me better than before.

Anyway. I'm sure if someone on tumblr finds this I'll be torn to shreds, have the words that describe my privilege used against me as insults, and that will not be fun... but I'd like to think I'm getting somewhere here. I'd like to think someone will think I have a good point, that I have something valuable to say.

Social justice movements cannot call themselves inclusive while excluding the group that excluded them. I get that that doesn't seem fair, but someone has to be the bigger person.

You know, coming from me, I can see how that sounds like a threat. "Someone has to be the bigger person"? I get it. It sounds exhausting, and a little bit patronizing, and unfair. The mainstream group should be being the bigger people. I know that, but they're not, and there's all these movements starting up that I see that are doing way, way better that I think are more viable alternatives at this point. And this doesn't have to happen fast. I'm just asking that this "skinny bitches" shit in the positivity movement is removed. Also, that the people who used to make me feel guilty for being from a family with money realize that that's not really much better than making people feel guilty for not coming from a family with money. Nobody can help who they're born to, and I have never been a bitch about money. Ever. The family I come from doesn't make me better or worse than anybody else, and I am incredibly aware of that.

yer pal,
swegan

Perfection

I think people tend to expect this of each other. I was scrolling through the "feminism" tag recently, and there was a lot of criticism in there- fair criticism.

The feminist movement is not perfect. It never has been. It probably never will be. Neither is its opposition, and nor will it be. Criticism is fine, yes, but sometimes I feel like it takes the vein of imperfections in a movement being used to work against it and to claim that the movement is useless, not working properly, or full of shit (especially when those criticisms aren't even valid, but that's another can of worms).

I think I have been especially guilty of this. I don't take criticism well. I never have, but I'd like to think that someday I will. I take everything too personally. It's one of the things I don't like about myself and is my biggest stumbling block.

The reason I was thinking about this was because of those posts that say "don't bully anyone, being mean to anyone is wrong!" because on one hand I think people who apply this attitude to feminism are massively missing the point but on the other hand, I still feel like some part of their argument has validity. This is mostly because of the kids in middle school who thought it was okay to make me feel like shit because I came from a family that was well off. While I can understand that my being bullied about this was not the same as facing disadvantages that actively held me back (b/c coming from a family that has money to support me gives me advantages and thus privilege, which I am immensely grateful for), I can still acknowledge that what they did was not cool and they shouldn't have been doing it. I'm still not sure how to apply this to feminism, but I'm sure it has its place.

Perhaps it's that actively making men feel bad for being men is a bad idea? I'm not sure if I do that as a feminist- I really hope not. Obviously there's nothing wrong with being male, my problem is with the societal ideal (and the one you see commonly presented in media of all sorts) of what it means to be male. I think a lot of people subscribe to that ideal and that worries me. And then obviously there's real men who have been shitty by living out that ideal (and by, say, being abusive) when they're smart enough to know better. Men aren't stupid, and I guess perhaps feminism doesn't give them enough credit. I think perhaps it's important to recognize the line between shitty masculinity and shitty men, or something along those lines?

It's late. I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, and I've been listening to a mix of pop songs I made on youtube for the past two hours. It's fascinating how all these songs from different time periods in my life comes together to present an amalgamation of something that resembles how I see myself.

yer pal,
swegan

"What would you do if you weren't afraid?"

God, I hate it when people ask me this. But, let's see.

I think I'd go ahead and get my PhD in biology. Even the brief wikipedia readups of the antibodies/"primaries" that i have to put on the westerns fascinates me. cancer is fascinating. The ways in which it proliferates and sustains and spreads are vast, but that also means there's a lot of potential to take it out. The other day I was reading about DNMT3a, which is DNA methyltransferase 3a. Typically thought to be involved in the methylation of (I think?) CpG sites in DNA in early development but maaaybe also later when methylations are copied (transferred- things in science seem to actually be named very simply and to-the-point) during DNA reproduction. It was so cool. Plus, there was a girl in the lab who did her PhD defense last Tuesday, and for some reason I got really excited for her, imagining how hard she would have been working to get to that point, to get her doctorate. And I think that's when I knew that biology was where I was meant to be, and I was going to get my PhD if it killed me.

But then again... if I wasn't afraid of it, I'd also be a doctor. Doctors are important. I know I am fully capable of getting myself through med school, if I put my mind to it. But the problem is that med school really doesn't appeal to me, because I'm kind of scared of the work. I'm also kind of scared that I'd hate the work after school. Although this didn't stop me from daydreaming about being an MD PhD the other day. The best of both worlds, really... although the guy I was reading about was a pediatric oncologist, and I can't imagine that job must be fun.

I would also write more. I think maybe I don't write because I'm scared. Or maybe because I don't want to. Either way, I hate that I made such a big deal out of it because now everyone still acts like I'm prolific when the reality is I don't write anymore. I don't. I don't want to. It's exhausting. It's hard work. I don't want to be a writer anymore. I don't know why. It kind of feels like something inside of me either shriveled up and died, or just left- I hope it's the latter, because then it can come back.

I think I'd also have gone to visit my boyfriend at one point, and my other friends in my uni city. I'd have gone down to the nearby national park only an hour south of me to hike and enjoy nature. I'd have invited friends out to the cabin.

I'd also look more into doing a semester abroad.

I'd probably quit EPASS. lord knows I've been thinking about that for a long time. But I feel so guilty about it, like because my parents donated a bunch of money to the fundraiser and it is good volunteering experience and the people I've met in the group are so nice and they really do need help, but honestly... space is cool, and so is this project, but I kind of feel like... I dunno, like I'm not helping, like I fell behind on reading because the reading was really boring to me, like there's maybe a reason I don't check my emails nearly often enough, maybe a reason there hasn't been a newsletter for over a month? Mom and Dad said that they only donated as much as they did because I was involved, which does not fucking help with the guilt. I feel like I signed up for this, I need to keep at it. I'm also scared that if I were to leave, the people in the group would hate me, which is actually completely unfounded because those people are not shitty people. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm also starting to wonder if someone else can't do my job better than I can. Someone who cares more than I do. I feel so horrible about not caring, when I've been given this opportunity. And aren't you supposed to take every opportunity? Isn't that what I'm supposed to be doing right now, snagging every single one that comes along? That, to me, feels like it would leave me overloaded.
I seriously need to make up my mind on this. On the one hand, if I did end up leaving before returning to uni, my parents would know and get mad. On the other hand, if I waited until I got up there, I'd have to do it face to face and idk if I could get through that without crying. Maybe I'll see how many new recruits they get from the clubs fair? If a bunch of people join, I'd feel less bad about leaving... ugh. This has been tearing me up for weeks. I feel like the shittiest club member in the world, and I don't know why, since it's a free country and I'm allowed to leave if I want to. It's not like I work for them.

I think I would travel more. Alone. If I wasn't afraid of being approached by strangers because I am small, naive, and female. If I wasn't afraid of trying new foods.

Honestly, I think I'd probably eat differently, too. The other week I got in a seriously debilitating internal argument over a bag of chips which ended up with me deciding to start working out, which has actually ended up in a dramatic reduction of sad feelings which is totally not what I was trying to get out of it at all but kind of is what I'm trying to get out of it now (seriously, being home has really made me sad, which makes absolutely 0 sense).

And also, I would probably have more sex. I mean, not that I'm currently HAVING any, but you get my point. I think we would all do that. Come on. I HAD TO PUT THIS IN HERE. It's the truth. If I wasn't so afraid of getting pregnant...

I'd also probably take more dance classes and be less worried about it being a waste of money. Dance makes me happy. It always feels like something I can be good at and something I was born to do.

I don't actually know if all of these things are good ideas, or if doing them will improve my life or make me happy. Some of them, probably. Others, ???

I think this question is still worth taking the time to answer, though. You can learn a lot about yourself.

yer pal,
swegan :)

"You're too young to be have physically intimate relationships"

Well excUuUuUuUuUuUuUuse me! I might be young, but the law still says that I'm legally an adult. You know what that means? I get to decide what happens to me. If I want to totally abstain from everything and not even kiss people until I'm married, that's up to me. If I want to have lots of casual sex, that's up to me. If I want to be physically intimate with one person at a time, that's up to me. Your only concern should be about the spread of STDs and my risk of pregnancy, which I'm already concerned about.

I don't think my parents get that they actually raised me to be smart. I know, I know, I get that there are risks involved with this. But I'm also educated on how to mitigate those risks. I know that I should always have sex with a condom, yadda yadda. It just gets exhausting when my parents keep insisting that "everything should still be covered at this point." *awkward cough* um. Sure. Okay. As if your opinion has any bearing on this at all.

Although I have to admit there were two surprises that I found when I started to become physically intimate with my current boyfriend: 1) it increased my confidence like 500%, and 2) intimacy is a spectrum. Allow me to elaborate:

1) confidence-- well, obviously this was a big jump for me as I've never really done much of anything with anyone in terms of intimacy. But once stuff actually started happening, I actually found that it was really... empowering, in a way. I knew what I was doing and I knew I had control over how much of it could be done and when (the importance of consent, people), and I liked it. It was fun. Plus, having someone appreciate your body is kinda nice, just sayin'. The combination of feeling like I had control over what happened to my body and that somebody thought my body was really fucking attractive was awesome. Could I have gained this confidence other ways? Definitely. But I gained it this way, and I'm proud of it.

2) the spectrum-- this one mostly comes from tv and movies and other media involving teenagers in physical relationships. Most of the time what I see is that their relationships involve "typical stuff"- kissing, hand holding, makeout sessions where the guy tries to go farther and the girl always stops him (seriously, that stuff is getting old- altho there were occasional gender-role-reversals in there, not gonna lie), but nothing more. Those relationships would then either stay that way, or jump straight into full on penetrative sex. This is what I thought real relationships were like.
The problem with this model is that it completely negates the whole realm of other stuff you can do with someone without risking pregnancy and still having fun. That was I think the best part about this whole experience for me, was discovering "OH THERE ARE OTHER THINGS!" I mean, if you just want to stick to making out and leaving your clothes on, go right ahead. But believe me, there's more than just plain old heterosexual sex beyond that. I don't know why this didn't occur to me sooner, but it has now.

I apologize if this post was a little bit, er... explicit. Although I suppose it's not like I'm going into any great detail or anything. For the record, about 88% of what Ptarckas and I do is just straight snuggling. I'm not even kidding. Which is fucking awesome, because snuggles are the shit and I would say anyone who says otherwise is lying but I get that there are people who don't like snuggling or stuff like that, and that is just fine.

I suppose I learned one more thing, though: there are people out there who want what you want. Or, at least, will negotiate with you. I sort of went off to university believing that boys didn't like snuggling, or hand holding, or mushy stuff, and that nobody would want to be in a relationship with me because I was pretty uninterested in having sex (and I still am- the pregnancy risk is too high for me), and that my unshaved legs and strong interest in feminism would deter potential boyfriends. While I may have found someone my parents don't entirely approve of, he has proven all of those things to be false (at least in his case)-- at one point when I was telling him about my mother's many warnings to me that boys wouldn't want to date me because of my hairy legs, he grabbed my shins, pulled them into his lab, and just started casually... augh, what's the word... stroking them? And also proceeded to say "there is nothing wrong with your legs" which just made me all mushy. How could I not love someone like that? Seriously.

Anyway, I just find it stupid that my parents think I'm too young and immature to make good decisions, which I probably am some of the time b/c I don't know anything, but in other respects I think I know what I'm doing. I might fuck up a little along the way, but the point is that I'm still proceeding with caution, and only with people who understand consent and make me feel respected, safe, and happy. (this of course comes with the mandate that I also respect them and make them feel safe and happy- if someone says they don't want to do something, or are not in the mood, the other person has to respect that. This is not optional).

yer pal,
swegan

p.s. sorry if I seriously weirded out any of my friends that read this. ILU GUISE. FOR SERIOUS.

"You are not owed a world in which only beautiful people enter your view"

I got a little distracted on Sparknotes trying to review for English, and stumbled across this article: http://community.sparknotes.com/2013/10/14/auntie-sparknotes-is-it-common-courtesy-to-cover-my-eczema. It's very, very true, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is silly and conceited. People don't always look perfect and they certainly don't owe it to anyone to cover up their imperfections. People have acne and rashes and scars, and that's that. I know I've been guilty of thinking things like this, too, and it is truly not a good thing to do (and I have been trying to replace it by thinking three nice things about that person every time I think something bad about them (re: appearances), which really helps because it forces me to see the beauty in other people, rather than what's not perfect about them) (and to recognize that they are people too).

It resonated with me because of a conversation I had last year with a couple of friends in the cafeteria. They told me this little story of how "some fat girl was just in here wearing this tank top that was way too tight, and it just didn't look good on her, y'know, like you have to dress for your body", etc etc. At the time I think I agreed with them, which was heinous and wrong and don't agree with people when they say that, please. Because I went home and realized that, wait a minute, there's something wrong here.
When people say "Dress for your body shape" usually it means "dress in the most flattering way" which I'm guessing roughly translates to "dress in the way that makes you look skinniest" and there is just something so fucked up about that I can't even.

This little incident, I thought, related to this article/advice thing/whatever as well. You don't have to dress a certain way to please people that think that if you're not dressing to look your skinniest you're doing it wrong. There's nothing wrong with dressing that way, but there's nothing wrong with not dressing that way, either. You don't owe it to anyone to dress a certain way. And if anyone tries to tell you that someone else looks "disgusting" squeezing out of their tank top, you can tell them that actually it's none of their fucking business and that you hope they have a nice day.

Dress is complicated because there's still some occasions where that's not okay, i.e., business things, formal functions, etc. But in everyday life, who cares? I just hope that everyone dresses warmly enough for the weather, because that is a matter of health and wellness and not just appearance and so I am a stickler for it. I mean if you think you can handle wearing a miniskirt at this time of year this far North, I applaud you, but I am still going to question your judgement.

This isn't to say that you have to like how people dress, either. You're not obligated to do that. But don't judge them based on their appearance- hell, if I had just said "no" to Grag when he asked me out because he wears sweatpants LITERALLY ALL THE TIME, where would I be now? The important thing to remember is that there are people in those clothes who might actually become really good friends, or even more than good friends (IF YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYIN') if you just ignore the fact that you think their wardrobe is horrible and get to know them. (On the other hand, they might also be people you will not get along with. Dress is not an indicator of compatibility). I am a firm believer in the idea that personality is what counts, and if things do work out, then you won't really care about what they look like because you'll know that within is this awesome person that you get to know and hang out with. It's fantastic.

yer pal,
swegan :)

Someday all this will be stories and I like the idea of that

I like the idea of telling people about my university years someday, and getting to say "I had a fantastic first semester- I have no idea how it was so good, but I managed to do well in all my classes, visit home a couple of times, make new friends, get involved in an awesome club that allowed me to explore my interest in space, and I got a boyfriend." Like how. How is this happening. How am I doing this. IT LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE I HAVE MY LIFE ALL FIGURED OUT AND I STILL DON'T FEEL LIKE I SHOULD FEEL THAT WAY.

Maybe that's one of those societal things, though, where everyone assumes that no one has their life figured out and it's like no okay I don't have my entire future planned to the letter but I have the next four years or so roughly figured out and that's good enough for me, I can build on that, and I'm right at the beginning of everything right now and it is so much fun. My job right now is to learn and grow, both in school and as a person and in my relationships, whether they be friendships or more "coworker/associate" type relationships or relationship relationships.

Another thing I don't like, though, is that reasonably I can say that I will date lots more people before I settle down. I don't like that because when you're in the start of a new relationship and everything's all peaches and sprinkles, you don't like to think of that fact, because it effectively puts an expiration date on your relationship. I don't want to put an expiration date on this because at the moment it makes me really, really happy. But I guess it's the same thing with saying that friends come and go from your life, and some friendships grow stronger and some fade away and that's just how it is, but that doesn't mean you look at each of your friendships and start thinking that statistically they won't all work out. I suppose some people get married to people they dated in high school, or they only have a few relationships, or their relationships last years and years. It's like on how i met your mother how Lily and Marshall have been together forever, but then everyone around them dates a bunch of people before settling down. I suppose I should just stop freaking out about it, enjoy the relationship while it lasts (and the future is looking bright, my friends, especially because I am an adult now and I get to say what I am and am not comfortable with- I also wanted to talk about that, but in a second), and just enjoy life while it's good. Maybe my life will always be this way, maybe I'm just good at looking on the bright side, maybe life will have downs where things are hard or sad. Either way doesn't change the fact that I'm okay right now and that's all I need to worry about.

Speaking of the "I am an adult now" thing- what I mean by that is that when I mentioned to my parents earlier this week that Grag was going to come over and we were going to skype with Vince (she really wanted to meet him), I had said "so he'll be sitting right here" and pointed next to me on my bed, and then realized that I was talking to my parents, and quickly said "or on the couch." My mother got that mother-tone in her voice and said "he better not be sitting there" to which my dad agreed and then my mom said "You're not ready for that" and that just struck me as, to put it in my mom's words, colossally stupid. I immediately retorted with "Don't you think that's for me to decide?" Then they tried to tell me that they knew best or blabbity bla, that whole "you're young you don't really know what you're talking about" thing, and then my dad said "It's not control, it's concern." To which I replied that yes, I knew that, and I did like that they were concerned about me because of course they would be, they're my parents. But it's like they don't realize that saying "You're not ready for that" does sound like control.
In the end, he did end up sitting next to me in my room, and then there was some stuff that happened which we have decided to call "cuddling" that was actually very enjoyable, to put it lightly. And as it turns out, I was totally fine with it, and so my parents were wrong. Of course they were- they're not me. They can't possibly tell me what I am or am not ready for. Only I can. Of course there's things I'm not ready for- and that's fine. But I am the one who makes those decisions, not my parents.
I do feel a little rebellious, though, considering that they wouldn't let me be alone with a boy for all of high school and now there's nothing stopping me beyond time constraints. And, lo and behold, I actually chose to date a guy who is respectful of my wishes and stops when I ask him to and respects my boundaries, and also makes sure to check in and be like "how are you doing?" every now and then, which I have obviously picked up on and have been doing as well. Although sometimes even answering that question with words is impossible because I forget how to words, so you can tell I picked a good guy ;)

The future is bright, my friends. Even despite the snowfall/freezing rain warning for tomorrow. Things are good and I am trying to just not question that for right now.

yer pal,
swegan :)

Sometimes I forget that the majority of people in the world still believe in some kind of god

Sometimes I forget that when people say the word god, they actually mean something, when to me it's just a word that's tacked on at the end of "oh my" to form a common phrase. The word god doesn't mean anything to me, it doesn't hold any significance. And a lot of the time, I keep forgetting that the majority of the world is completely unlike that.
I'm not going to complain about it. Believe whatever you want, I don't care, whatever keeps you happy at night. I'm completely satisfied with the belief that I am a small speck in a big universe and I'm going to die someday and that will be the end of me, that I am in total control of my own life, that everyone else is also in total control of their lives, and that nothing other than that fact and the laws of physics which govern the universe cause anything to happen.

Of course, I get a nice little reminder when people on facebook post religious stuff. I saw this the other day, and at first it seemed okay, and then I kept reading. I really should have stopped:

"Apparently the White House referred to Christmas Trees as Holiday Trees for the first time this year, which prompted CBS presenter, Ben Stein, to present this piece which I would like to share with you.

The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary.

My confession:
I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejewelled trees, Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are, Christmas trees.

It doesn't bother me a bit when people say, 'Merry Christmas' to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a nativity scene, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to.

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking.

Billy Graham's daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her 'How could God let something like this happen?' (regarding Hurricane Katrina). Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response. She said, 'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'

In light of recent events... terrorist attacks, school shootings, etc. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school. The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said okay.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.'

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell.
Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.

Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.

If not, then just discard it.... no one will know you did. But, if you discard this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what a bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully,

Ben Stein

 — with Terry Reed."

*cracks knuckles* oh, where do I begin?

Oh, poor baby, you have atheism shoved down your throat? How about we don't have religion in public schools because not everyone believes it anymore? I'm not saying let's not have religious discussion in school- by all means, let's have a class that teaches about the various different religions in the world, their beliefs and practices, so that people can make up their own minds. What I'm against is people acting like atheism is wrong and being "shoved down their throats" and like atheism is the immoral thing that's causing all these bad things to happen.
Newsflash: school shootings don't happen because schools are secular. School shootings happen because of bad gun laws and people who somehow get it in their heads that shooting other people is okay. That has absolutely fucking nothing to do with your god. Nothing. LITERALLY NOTHING.
That's what I really hate about this, it implies that religion is the only way through which people can be moral. Second newsflash: I'm a moral person (according to societal standards), and guess what, I am totally not religious. WHOA HOW THE FUCK DOES THAT WORK?? Well, maybe it's because I'm a human being who was raised by human standards, by parents who raised me to be honest and kind, parents who raised me not to steal and hurt other people, simply because those things hurt other people, sometimes myself, and so I shouldn't do them because, at the bottom of it all, humans are social creatures who need to be able to live together to survive, so hurting each other isn't really in our best interests. The end.
Another bit I really hate is the "we aren't allowed to worship god." WOULD YOU PLEASE TELL ME WHO THE FUCK IS STOPPING YOU OH MY GOODNESS, all we are saying is that if you want your kids to learn the bible, don't make the school do it, because the school is where kids who come from families who don't follow the bible go too. Maybe those families believe in another holy book, or, like mine, no holy book at all. And, you know what, I actually have several bibles lying around the house because WE WERE FUCKING GIVEN BIBLES IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. Don't even whine to me that public schools are completely atheist if I was given a fucking bible in a public school in Canada. That is such an absolute load of fucking crap.
And the whole thing is written under the bias of a person who believes that god exists, too. Third newsflash (have you been living under a rock?): there's actually no proof of that. No, literally. There's none. NONE. And don't try to use the bible argument. "Oh, well god exists because it says so in the bible." Who wrote the bible? "It is the word of god." So... to assume the bible is truth, one has to assume god exists, which is the only way to get proof that god exists (unless you're Descartes and you work out the causal principle, which can also be argued to be incorrect). That's a circular argument, that's a logical fallacy. I can't accept a deductive argument based on premises like that. If the premises aren't true, the conclusion isn't true.

Just. The whole thing. Pisses me off so much. People like this... I just don't understand how they function on a daily basis. You guys are aware that other people in the world believe other things, right? You can't change that. You can't do anything about it. There's lots of people who don't believe what you do, people like me even, who don't believe in any sort of higher power. How does that sit with you?
I have accepted that there are plenty of other people in the world who don't believe what I do, and I'm fine with it, so fine with it that often times I actually forget that that's the case. I don't have to prove my beliefs to anybody, I don't need them shoved down other people's throats and stuffed into the minds of children for me to be satisfied with them. I don't need to build buildings about it, I don't need to write books of crazy stories about it with a list of ironclad rules that have severe punishments. No, my belief is simple: I should be a good person because it is to the benefit of myself and to the benefit of those around me, often equally.
This is another part of religion I don't like; often times I've heard kids say things along the lines of "first comes god, then comes others, and then lastly, myself." That's just not healthy. There's nothing wrong with taking care of yourself, looking out for yourself. Look after others, too, but for crying out loud, have some balance. Help people, but don't be afraid to help yourself, don't be afraid to ask for help. Just keep things balanced. That is all I can say.

I am just so sick and tired of being called immoral because I don't believe the same fairy tale that a large portion of the world believes. I think Miley Cyrus actually said something to this effect, something like "Going out doesn't make you a bad person, just like going to church doesn't make you a good person." Just because you're religious, doesn't automatically mean you are better and wiser and more moral than me. You are just another human being, just like me. Your beliefs do not make you better- likewise, they do not necessarily make you worse. However, there are some people in the world who do use their beliefs in such a way that I think it does make them worse, like those people who think that "religious freedom" means that their religion is the only way and that no others, like atheists, should have religious freedom- this has a lot to do with birth control in the states. If you don't like birth control, don't f*cking use it. But just because you don't like it doesn't mean you get to impose your way of life on other people. Sorry, sweetykins, that's not how the world works, and it's about time you grew up and realized that.

I do realize this post is pretty nasty and condescending, and I realize that I should be the bigger person, but sometimes that's really hard. Sometimes this happens.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people who are religious and choose to go to church and read the bible and believe that jesus died for our sins. I do have something against people who judge me for not being religious and doing all that stuff that goes with it. If you want to quietly live out a religious life, go right ahead, just leave other people out of it when they ask, okay?

And for the love of the nonexistent god everyone seems to believe in, can you not pray for me? Seriously. I'm fine. I don't need it, it's really annoying and just kind of patronizing. Don't pray for the salvation of my soul. Just let me be. I don't need saving, thanks. I'm just fine.
Oh, and don't be that woman on Google+ who thought it was okay to tell me I was angry and confused and did need help. Don't try to tell others what they're feeling, k? K. All settled then.

yer pal,
swegan

Okay let's talk about chemical weapons (Don't even try to argue with me. I have credible sources. WHICH I WILL SHARE WITH YOU IF YOU WANT).

Note: I am aware that this is probably not why you are here, but I can totes recommend some sources on this subject to you if you need them. Skip down to the bottom!
They're horrible, I agree. But, when you think about it... aren't all weapons pretty horrible? Don't bombs also cause plenty of civilian casualties? I agree that chemical weapons are far more difficult to control, and as thus, end up killing more people who are not fighting the war. BUT everyone seems to cry in outrage every time they are used, while if people use guns, tanks, bombs, and grenades in war, that's all totally fine and dandy.
??? I don't get it and I'm sick and tired of people acting like chemical weapons are SO MUCH FUCKING WORSE THAN REGULAR WEAPONS when they do the exact same thing: kill (and injure). Weapons are weapons.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support the use of chemical weapons. I don't support the use of weapons at all. I'm a huge pacifist, I think. I just... I don't like violence, and I don't like war, and I don't like people getting hurt, but I am aware that it happens and I have to deal with that. I can't stop all wars in the world singlehandedly.

Let me tell you another thing about chemical weapons: logically, they make more sense to use in war than other traditional weapons (don't even try to question my knowledge of this- I spent 9 months writing a 4000 word paper on whether treaties were an effective means of control of chemical weapons from 1899-1930. I. have done. my fucking. research) because they cause fewer deaths and casualties- not to mention they cause much less damage to property, like buildings and roads, etc. I'll admit they probably have a not-so-terrific environmental impact, but hey, all those buried shells from WWI probably don't, either... same thing goes for all the resources used to MAKE weapons in the first place.

I just... I am very passionate about this, especially after my EE supervisor called this position "morally repugnant" last year. I'm sorry, what makes other weapons less morally repugnant? What makes these weapons worse than other weapons? (Because of this I am now of the mindset that said EE supervisor is a bit... idealistic, and also that he never really read my paper, if you know what I mean). I mean, there is quite a bit of evidence of psychological damage- things like "gas fright" and the whole gas-masks-in-WWI-were-super-shitty thing (apparently some soldiers had so much trouble breathing through them that they would tear them off, unwilling to suffocate under the mask but willing to face the poisoned air)... but again, let's spin it back around to other weapons. Wouldn't getting shot at for days on end cause some psychological damage? Having bombs drop near/on you? Having grenades thrown at you? Having limbs blown off? Yeah, nice try, but other weapons cause just as much psychological damage, and for some reason, they're all morally acceptable in war.

I found a good quote last year in my research that really illustrates my point- I'm going to try to find it again. Actually, I have a couple of good ones. This one is long, but I think it's worth reading.

"The general impression that gas is an inhumane weapon is derived partly from the German breach of faith in using it contrary to the Hague Convention, and partly from the nature and number of casualties in the earliest cloud attacks which were made against unprotected troops. Under the stress of a long war the individual is apt to forget the physical and mental sufferings it involves, unless he is daily in contact with them, but a dramatic occurrence such as that of the first gas attack forces on the imagination the brutal significance of war—the struggle for victory by killing—and the new weapon is judged as inhumane, like gunpowder in the fifteenth century. If we accept war as a possibility, the most humane weapon is that which leads to a decision with the smallest amount of human suffering and death. Judged from this standpoint, gas compares favourably with other weapons during the period when both sides were fully equipped for offence and defence. The death-rate among gas casualties was much lower than that among casualties from other causes, and not only was the death-rate lower, but a much smaller proportion of the injured suffered any permanent disability. There is no comparison between the permanent damage caused by gas, and the suffering caused to those who were maimed and blinded by shell and rifle fire. It is now generally admitted that in the later stages of the war many military objects could be attained with less suffering by using gas than by any other means. (Lefebure, Victor. The Riddle of the Rhine: Chemical Strategy in Peace and War. New York: The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 1923. (Chapter 11- It was an online source; a such, I have no page numbers)).

"The reader may feel that gas warfare is horrible and inhumane. No form of warfare is humane, for war is the negation of humanity. New gases may cause a larger proportion of deaths and perhaps more suffering than those used in 1918, but it is unlikely that any chemical weapon will cause more terrible effects than the weapons already accepted by civilized man in war." (Waitt, Alden H. Gas Warfare: The Chemical Weapon, Its Use, and Protection Against it. New York: Duell, Sloane, and Pierce, revised edition 1944. Pages 5-6)).

I TOLD YOU.

I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

yer pal,
swegan :)

P.S. For anyone else who is curious/researching the subject, I can recommend the rest of my resources to you! I found online links to The Hague Convention (1899) (well it might just be the specific bit about chemical weapons, I am not sure), The Treaty of Versailles (from 1919; it is crazy long), and The Geneva convention (1925). I also have a few online books I was using- the second source I cited is actually available online- as well as real books that might be handy in researching this topic, or just chemical weapons in general (around the time they were first used en masse). I had to work so hard to find friggin' sources on this stuff, and even had to get a couple of interlibrary loans, and I would love if I could help someone else out. So if you need any links/book recommendations, let me know! (I also might recall the names of some of the online databases I used while looking for ebooks).