Because My Life is Obviously So Difficult
"A pastor I know, who gets a more privileged vista of human suffering than I do, told me she was sick of the phrase “first-world problems” — not just because it delegitimizes the perfectly real problems of those of us lucky enough to have enough to eat and Internet access, but because it denies the same stupid trivial human worries to people who aren’t. Are you not entitled to existential angst or tedium vitae if you live in Chad — must you always nobly suffer traditional third-world problems like malaria and coups d’état? If we’re lucky, we graduate to increasingly complex and better problems, and once all our material needs are satisfied we get to confront the insoluble problem of being a person in the world." Tim Kreider, The Feast of Pain
And isn't he absolutely right?
Let us consider, for a moment, an example completely other to that that Kreider suggests. Consider, perhaps, being an adult looking down on a teenager. I've spoken before on how adults have a tendency to dismiss perfectly legitimate actions on a younger persons behalf because they know that in the grand scheme of things, these actions will be short lived - despite the fact that those things mean a great deal to the person at that time. It's exactly the same with problems.
Whenever a teenager mentions that they feel overburdened with their workload, or that they are struggling to befriend their peers, they do not like their teachers, they have money issues, none of their clothes fit, none of their clothes are deemed "cool"...whatever the problem and whatever the severity is - either to the person in their world, or to the rest of the world - grown ups find it very easy to dismiss this.
And yes, perhaps in the grander scale of life, the problems grown ups have are more difficult. If you're overburdened with your load of homework - well, an adult likely has the twice the amount you have due for a deadline which cannot be compromised. Maybe your peers look down on you - but an adult's life is more difficult because their boss not only treats them like muck, but also has the power to get them fired if they so much as speak out of line.
But, does that make the problems they have any less? If a baby is hungry and crying because of that, we feed it ourselves - we do not leave it and expect it to get its own food. Not so for an adult. If an adult is hungry, then they can either wait, or they are expected to make or pay for their own meal. We do not apply the same rules adults abide to, to babies, and just like that we should not do so to teenagers.
A teenager's problems may seems small in comparison to an adults, but in comparison to their world - a shorter timeframe, a smaller scope - their problems might not only seem bigger, but be much more difficult for them to conquer. It's easy for adults to assume your problems are easy to solve because with their plethora of life experience they have probably faced your problems before, and worked them out. But you are solving them for the first time, and you don't know the ins and outs that you will need to walk to reach the summit.
And just like the way adults assume that a teenager's life is ignorant bliss, so too can life be difficult for those who live in relative comfort. That doesn't mean she shouldn't feel a thousand times grateful for everything we have that most do not - but it does mean that the next time someone tells you that what you feel and the problems you have don't matter - because theirs or someone else's are greater...then you have my permission to read them this blog post aloud (and do a sassy "Z" clicky thing that I don't know the name of.)
Bella
Tuesday 29 April 2014
Tremors: Review
"Underground Goddamn Monsters..."
I briefly expressed my love for this film in my post: "Best Worst Delivered Lines of All Time", but my god does does it deserve a review. Let's gloss over the fact that um...maybe I was on a Geography trip all of today and I don't have the time or energy to get together an actual post. So, yes, this film was released a long time ago. Nine years, give or take, before I was born, in 1990. But's it's relatively niche, a little bit of a cult favourite. Chances are, considering it only had a budget of $11000000, if you're a fan of B movies, you might be into it. And chances are, considering its stellar cast and great critical reception (including a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 88%) you've heard a little about it. But's here's my take on the (absolutely fabulous) piece of film.
So, first of all, what is it? I've heard it described as a "western monster film", and whilst it holds traits of other horror movies, I would not class it as scary. My brother (seven at the time he first saw it) absolutely loved it. It also seems to run another storyline over the top - there is about as much rivalry between handymen Val and Earl, and a growing romance between Rhonda and Val as there seems to be people getting eaten by graboids. Starring Kevin Bacon as Val, Finn Carter as Rhonda and Fred Ward as Earl, we start the film in the incredibly quiet town of Perfection Valley (pop. 14). An outsider amongst the townspeople is graduate Rhonda, conducting seismology tests, who is the first to spot unusual occurrences when the ground begins to inexplicably shake. Dismissing the phenomena to unreported blasting, or drilling, the townspeople of Perfection are not disturbed.
Except when Val and Earl, the handymen become sick of the quiet life in which they wait on everyone hand and foot, and leave for neighbouring town Bixby, they discover that several people who live along the valley have been killed in strange, inexplicable and occasionally grisly ways. After finally discovering that the only road out of the otherwise isolated Perfection has been blocked, they return to town. Eventually, it transpires that the cause are these enormous worm-monsters, or graboids, that have absolutely no explanation; they travel under the ground at huge speeds, sensing vibrations and grabbing their prey.
When I first saw this film, I honestly thought it was quite sexist. I mean, the main character Val, when deciding what he wants Rhonda to be like dictates - "You will have long blonde hair, big blue eyes, world class breasts, ass that won't quit and legs that go all the way up", and is incredibly disappointed when he just finds a pretty, but relatively demure, bookish scientist - more interested in making sure she doesn't catch sunstroke while she figures out her data than lounging around a poolside trying to tan. However, the film was also a big "fuck you" to that trope. Whilst most B movies revolve around the male protagonist saving his love interest, this one didn't. Yes, Val did cut Rhonda loose from some barbed wire on one occasion, but Rhonda worked out their escape route off the rocks, worked out the route by which they could leave Perfection, distracted the graboid from eating Val, worked out how to escape the sunken trailer. For once, we had a film in which the girl had the answers, and wasn't afraid to get down and dirty to figure some things out. And ultimately, it transpired that instead of the film writers being sexist, it was the character Val who had misogynistic ideals - and in fact his similarly educated coworker Earl called him up on these on several occasions, eventually forcing him to confront them.
Don't get me wrong, this film plays up stereotypes. We have Melvin, the hopelessly cringey "teenage quota filler" with catchphrases such as "way to go duuuuuude," and whose only pastime seems to be pissing off the rest of the townsfolk. We have Heather and Burt, the survivalists who literally fill up every single stereotype in this category - a living room with a wall of guns, water filtration, an odd knowledge of how to make bombs, an eagerness for WWIII to launch just so that they can get to survive it. But ultimately, like with Val, this film exposes these people for being stereotypes, but also being relatively three dimensional - I explain how this is in this blog post. Essentially, whilst Melvin is an "ass-wipe" (what a good insult), he's also exposed as being incredibly afraid and hiding behind a tough guy persona. Heather and Burt are exposed as ultimately being by far the bravest characters in the film - "I'll let him take me down" and as having an incredibly sweet relationship aside from the guns and the radios - "I know, I know, he thinks he knows everything."
I briefly expressed my love for this film in my post: "Best Worst Delivered Lines of All Time", but my god does does it deserve a review. Let's gloss over the fact that um...maybe I was on a Geography trip all of today and I don't have the time or energy to get together an actual post. So, yes, this film was released a long time ago. Nine years, give or take, before I was born, in 1990. But's it's relatively niche, a little bit of a cult favourite. Chances are, considering it only had a budget of $11000000, if you're a fan of B movies, you might be into it. And chances are, considering its stellar cast and great critical reception (including a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 88%) you've heard a little about it. But's here's my take on the (absolutely fabulous) piece of film.So, first of all, what is it? I've heard it described as a "western monster film", and whilst it holds traits of other horror movies, I would not class it as scary. My brother (seven at the time he first saw it) absolutely loved it. It also seems to run another storyline over the top - there is about as much rivalry between handymen Val and Earl, and a growing romance between Rhonda and Val as there seems to be people getting eaten by graboids. Starring Kevin Bacon as Val, Finn Carter as Rhonda and Fred Ward as Earl, we start the film in the incredibly quiet town of Perfection Valley (pop. 14). An outsider amongst the townspeople is graduate Rhonda, conducting seismology tests, who is the first to spot unusual occurrences when the ground begins to inexplicably shake. Dismissing the phenomena to unreported blasting, or drilling, the townspeople of Perfection are not disturbed.Except when Val and Earl, the handymen become sick of the quiet life in which they wait on everyone hand and foot, and leave for neighbouring town Bixby, they discover that several people who live along the valley have been killed in strange, inexplicable and occasionally grisly ways. After finally discovering that the only road out of the otherwise isolated Perfection has been blocked, they return to town. Eventually, it transpires that the cause are these enormous worm-monsters, or graboids, that have absolutely no explanation; they travel under the ground at huge speeds, sensing vibrations and grabbing their prey.
And so the townspeople have to either fight back or escape - and it won't be easy, because the monsters are closing in.
When seen this way, it seems a little bit of tacky, but it's loveable science fiction film - the effects good only because the monsters (luckily) are completely subterranean so seldom have to be shown. It's also an amazing call back to 1950s B movies such as The Blob, They Came from Outer Space and Them! to name but a few.
When I first saw this film, I honestly thought it was quite sexist. I mean, the main character Val, when deciding what he wants Rhonda to be like dictates - "You will have long blonde hair, big blue eyes, world class breasts, ass that won't quit and legs that go all the way up", and is incredibly disappointed when he just finds a pretty, but relatively demure, bookish scientist - more interested in making sure she doesn't catch sunstroke while she figures out her data than lounging around a poolside trying to tan. However, the film was also a big "fuck you" to that trope. Whilst most B movies revolve around the male protagonist saving his love interest, this one didn't. Yes, Val did cut Rhonda loose from some barbed wire on one occasion, but Rhonda worked out their escape route off the rocks, worked out the route by which they could leave Perfection, distracted the graboid from eating Val, worked out how to escape the sunken trailer. For once, we had a film in which the girl had the answers, and wasn't afraid to get down and dirty to figure some things out. And ultimately, it transpired that instead of the film writers being sexist, it was the character Val who had misogynistic ideals - and in fact his similarly educated coworker Earl called him up on these on several occasions, eventually forcing him to confront them.Don't get me wrong, this film plays up stereotypes. We have Melvin, the hopelessly cringey "teenage quota filler" with catchphrases such as "way to go duuuuuude," and whose only pastime seems to be pissing off the rest of the townsfolk. We have Heather and Burt, the survivalists who literally fill up every single stereotype in this category - a living room with a wall of guns, water filtration, an odd knowledge of how to make bombs, an eagerness for WWIII to launch just so that they can get to survive it. But ultimately, like with Val, this film exposes these people for being stereotypes, but also being relatively three dimensional - I explain how this is in this blog post. Essentially, whilst Melvin is an "ass-wipe" (what a good insult), he's also exposed as being incredibly afraid and hiding behind a tough guy persona. Heather and Burt are exposed as ultimately being by far the bravest characters in the film - "I'll let him take me down" and as having an incredibly sweet relationship aside from the guns and the radios - "I know, I know, he thinks he knows everything."
Ultimately, this film shows a lot about human spirit, survival and smarts - with a hilarious script, wonderfully acted roles and just enough special effects that you never know what is coming next. Tremors is a fabulous film that people of most ages (if they don't mind mild swear words - think "goddamn bastards" and "motherhumper") could enjoy. It's such a shame that all three sequels are absolutely pants.
Bella x
Sunday 27 April 2014
Why Selfies are Great!
From a Nerdy Girl
Selfies are insanely big at the moment (they're in the OED!), and are almost exclusively critiscised for being narcissistic and egotistical. I want to explain why I think that is wrong, why that isn't necessarily a bad thing, and a few other reasons why you should definitely be taking selfies.
Let's start at the heart of what a selfie is. It's essentially a way to capture who you are, an impression of yourself in a particular moment to preserve that moment for more time. And it's nothing new. People have made impressions of themselves in this way since the dawn of time - we've drawn ourselves on cave walls, we've painted portraits of ourselves. The difference now, with the modern day selfies, is that it is available to pretty much everybody. Whilst once, you had to be insanely rich (think of Kings and Queens through history) to get a portrait painted of you, nowadays many people own mobile phones with cameras installed inside of them. Whilst once, the only recognised artists who painted themselves were male, selfies are indiscriminate of gender, with boys, girls and trans* people able to take them and get themselves represented. And whilst once, not so very long ago, the only photos in media were of a certain body type which the majority of the population had no chance in attaining, selfies are taken by people of every kind of body type and this allows us to recognise a million and one different types of beauty. And recognising that other types of beauty other than what the media portrays exist in other people, could potentially allow people to realise that they too have beauty of their own kind.
We can also take unflattering selfies, selfies of ourselves in our big hoodies and pyjama bottoms, pictures of ourselves doing boring things or very unsexy things - because beauty does not define us and we are under no obligation to always look flattering when we post a picture of ourselves. We - us, the person - should be enough, although obviously posting pictures when we feel fabulous can also be great!
Pictures essentially, show people who we are. Instead of letting other people take pictures of you, the selfie allows you control the way in which the world views you by taking your own picture. In this way, you can decide what angle to take the photo at, the lighting, the scenery, the filters and anyone else in the picture. It is a powerful way of defining yourself as a person, instead of letting other people define you. It must be said that in no way, how you defines you completely as a person. But selfies allow us to define ourselves a little more than we might otherwise be able to. Selfies can be taken while you do things that you love, you can take selfies where instead of smiling you show a facial expression and can share how you are feeling.
But are they narcissistic? Arguably, they are more narcissistic than society would like us to be. Society pressures people to constantly hate themselves, how they look - and even if they don't, they should pretend to. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on how pretty someone else is - but the second we admit that we have even the tiniest amount of beauty, it becomes self-centred and vain.
And society has done a pretty good job of ensuring people feel uncomfortable with how they look. 91% of women dislike their bodies, with 97% of women having an "I hate my body moment" daily. 43% of men have body insecurities, and 38% of men would exchange a year of their life for the ideal body. If that isn't a society in need of a little body loving, and narcissism and essentially recognizing their own beauty, well, then, I don't know what is.
And today, just for once, I'm signing off with a selfie. Technically it's a selfie of me taking a selfie. Selfie-fucking-ception. Lots of love, little peeps
Bella
Selfies are insanely big at the moment (they're in the OED!), and are almost exclusively critiscised for being narcissistic and egotistical. I want to explain why I think that is wrong, why that isn't necessarily a bad thing, and a few other reasons why you should definitely be taking selfies.
Let's start at the heart of what a selfie is. It's essentially a way to capture who you are, an impression of yourself in a particular moment to preserve that moment for more time. And it's nothing new. People have made impressions of themselves in this way since the dawn of time - we've drawn ourselves on cave walls, we've painted portraits of ourselves. The difference now, with the modern day selfies, is that it is available to pretty much everybody. Whilst once, you had to be insanely rich (think of Kings and Queens through history) to get a portrait painted of you, nowadays many people own mobile phones with cameras installed inside of them. Whilst once, the only recognised artists who painted themselves were male, selfies are indiscriminate of gender, with boys, girls and trans* people able to take them and get themselves represented. And whilst once, not so very long ago, the only photos in media were of a certain body type which the majority of the population had no chance in attaining, selfies are taken by people of every kind of body type and this allows us to recognise a million and one different types of beauty. And recognising that other types of beauty other than what the media portrays exist in other people, could potentially allow people to realise that they too have beauty of their own kind.
 |
| Unflattering Selfies |
 |
| Grumpy Selfie |
But are they narcissistic? Arguably, they are more narcissistic than society would like us to be. Society pressures people to constantly hate themselves, how they look - and even if they don't, they should pretend to. It is perfectly acceptable to comment on how pretty someone else is - but the second we admit that we have even the tiniest amount of beauty, it becomes self-centred and vain.
And society has done a pretty good job of ensuring people feel uncomfortable with how they look. 91% of women dislike their bodies, with 97% of women having an "I hate my body moment" daily. 43% of men have body insecurities, and 38% of men would exchange a year of their life for the ideal body. If that isn't a society in need of a little body loving, and narcissism and essentially recognizing their own beauty, well, then, I don't know what is.
And today, just for once, I'm signing off with a selfie. Technically it's a selfie of me taking a selfie. Selfie-fucking-ception. Lots of love, little peeps
Bella
Casual Present Ideas
After writing yesterday's post on trichotillomania, which I am very proud of, very scared of and was probably one of the most difficult things I've ever written, I've decided to keep the content lightish for today. I was trying to work out what I was going to buy for a casual friend, and I realised how difficult little presents are to choose.
Sometimes, people are difficult to get presents for, especially if you're not especially close. These presents are almost stocking fillers, but they work for little occasions, or for people that you don't really know that well. They are appropriate for both genders, but are more suitable for children and teenagers. I don't know. I think adults might appreciate them, too. :)
Playing cards are a pretty boring gift, right? Not if you go a little personalised. I know that Paperchase does some adorable playing cards in different styles, but I picked up these playing cards on sale in Waterstones. I think at full price they cost £3.67, but most places I've seen them they've been cheaper. Tim Burton personally oversaw and approved the illustrations on these cards, which have awesomely gothic characters on them, and with hand drawn spade, club, heart and diamond motifs and stripes on the back, they are a fabulous present for anyone of any age.
Available here.
For the record, major diatonic harmonicas are the standard tuning for harmonicas, although they come in difference keys. Harmonicas are a lovely little gift, because they are a super easy instrument to learn, so you essentially give your friend a skill to learn. Lots of easy music is available for free online, and lots of songs are available with harmonica parts, especially blues and folk. I bought my harmonica from Menkind a few years ago, after becoming obsessed with the song Minority by Green Day, but I'm pretty sure you can't buy that specific one anymore.
A good alternative is available here.
Owls Kindle Cover, £14
I picked this us at a market near me, and I have since discovered that the people - Daisy and Bert - that make them make these covers for practically anything - ipads, phones, laptops, kindles - in a million and one different designs. Each one is completely handmade, but are made to an amazing quality. Covers and socks for things that a person already has is a pretty safe bet, as it's very likely that not only will they find the present useful, they'll also appreciate that you put personal thoughts into it.
You can buy this design here.
Juggling Balls, £0.99
Everybody loves circus skills, right? Like the harmonica, giving someone juggling balls gives them the option to learn an impressive skill which they can show off after mastering it. You can get really good ones, ones that light up, more colourful ones, but the classic looking ones like this are ideal for giving to someone you don't know all that one. You could always pair it up with an instruction book or other circus skills items to make a more substantial gift.
Available here.
This particular book is definitely for those with a pretty dark sense of humour. But it might be worth considering getting someone you don't know well enough to choose a more substantial book, a light hearted book such as this. More adult picture books are always a good bet, as are books with poetry inside, or pieces of art. This particular cartoon book features rabbits trying to kill themselves in a million strange ways, which is definitely not a book you want to read all at once, but can be darkly amusing to occasionally refer to.
You can buy this particular book here.
20 Badges
This box from Paperchase is not sold anymore, but you can buy badges to suit practically any person, and they are a nice, cheap but also personal gift. If you don't know the person well you can buy badges like these ones which just have photos of small animals and sketches of things like foxes riding bicycles - but you could personalise them by buying badges for their favourite band, their favourite book, television show, et cetera.
Other Paperchase badges can be bought here.
Feminist or Humanist?
Dear Carrie Hope Fletcher
You said that you were not a feminist, and at first I was very upset, because usually I think you are a great role model and I didn't understand why you wouldn't want to be. Why would anyone not want to support the social, political and economic equality of the genders? And then I realised that, despite that being the most common definition, most people tend to think feminism is something worse - the media portrays feminists as gangs of hooligans who throw burning bras at men, or something equally as insane. You also essentially defined yourself as equalist, or humanist, and I was wondering if this conversation I had a few days ago, might help explain where I think the difference is?
Two days ago I commented on a Laci Green video about why I was a feminist.
"I'm a feminist for a million and one reasons, but it all boils down to the fact I know that women are people."
And immediately somebody responded:
" you dont have to be a feminist to think Girls or womens are people. and allot of feminist got this dubel standard how Girls are victims and men are the oppressors"
I decided to continue talking to this person, because I thought that debate is always good, right? I quite strongly disagreed, but like with you, I understand the cause for confusion. Many people do seem to believe that feminists are "man hating" which is where I think this person was coming from. I explain briefly how the patriarchy has negative effects on men, here, if you are interested.
"I completely disagree. All feminism really is, is moving towards the social, political and economic equality of the genders. It's not about labelling women as victims - although to be honest, they often are the ones being oppressed - and if you believe that women deserve the same rights as men, then you're a feminist. Otherwise, you're sexist."
I do realise now that the last part of that comment comes across as very bigoted, but what I was trying to convey was that if you believe in feminism, which I had already defined as the "social, political and economic equality of the genders" you aren't sexist, but if you do not believe that the genders should be socially, politically and economically equal then you are. And I stand by the point I tried to make if not the original post. The person replied as such:
"here we go again you are pulling the victim card .: im not a feminist and im not a sexist but fore you to say i have to be a feminist to believe in equality is bullshit i'm a humanist not a feminist get your facts straight"
At first I was a little thrown by the other person defining themselves as humanist as whilst I knew quite a bit about equalist and feminist, I needed to check my facts about humanism. So I did, and this is what I found out. I think, as you seem to have ideas similar to humanism and equalism, that it might be worth reading into this as well, but I briefly summarise it here.
"Firstly, where did I "pull the victim card"? I did mention that women are often oppressed, and I stand by that. It's not pulling a victim card to say that about one in four women will be sexually assaulted, that one in three women will be abused in a relationship, et cetera. I too, identify as a humanist. It is perfectly possible to identify as both. Most feminists do, and it is very difficult to be humanist and believe in equality, and to not be feminist and include women in that equality. Feminism is only different as, because of the fact that society is mostly patriarchal feminism has to have a clear agenda - unless misogyny is directly addressed an acted against then equalist and humanist activism will not be enough."
The other person commenting did not seem to take my point well - and seemed to believe that I insinuated that only women are victimised. And I agree, yes, horrible things happen to other people, but it does not take a lot of study of statistics, of stories, of looking at the world around; to realise that the patriarchy does exist and that life is often made more difficult for you as a woman. You can be humanist and say you want equal rights for all, certainly, but to do that you need to support those who are oppressed and that is where feminism comes in, supporting women so we can reach equality.
if you wanna take up oppressed so will i. girls get 50% less in jail for the same crime. one of four men get false rape accused who can ruin a Life. in child support the favor the woman over the man 100%. all this things i said now feminist don't give a shit about .. so dont tell me the got a angel agenda when they ignore this
This person helpfully provided me with some examples of how other people are oppressed, but as I said, that doesn't show that women are not oppressed. And he said that "feminist don't give a shit about" these issues - a) actually, feminism reaches far further than many would expect. For instance, male rape is a big issue for activism by feminists, and things like that. Feminism is about equality of the genders, and about not letting the patriarchy hurt people - including men and trans* people. b) there are issues that feminists don't necessarily actively campaign for as a group, which is why many feminists are equalists and humanists also, they just recognise that to be a feminist you support the equality of the genders and to be humanist you support other forms of equality. Subscribing to one does not stop you from being the other. I finally replied with this and decided to leave the conversation before it descended into hate.
When since did saying that some women are oppressed, imply that no one else is oppressed at all? And actually, approximately 2% of rape accusations transpire to be false.
I'm not accusing you of being a bad person, but perhaps this post might have informed you into why you should reconsider not being a feminist? All being a feminist means is supporting the social, economic and political equality of the genders, and well - I'm pretty sure that is something we should all support.
Bella
You said that you were not a feminist, and at first I was very upset, because usually I think you are a great role model and I didn't understand why you wouldn't want to be. Why would anyone not want to support the social, political and economic equality of the genders? And then I realised that, despite that being the most common definition, most people tend to think feminism is something worse - the media portrays feminists as gangs of hooligans who throw burning bras at men, or something equally as insane. You also essentially defined yourself as equalist, or humanist, and I was wondering if this conversation I had a few days ago, might help explain where I think the difference is?
Two days ago I commented on a Laci Green video about why I was a feminist.
"I'm a feminist for a million and one reasons, but it all boils down to the fact I know that women are people."
And immediately somebody responded:
" you dont have to be a feminist to think Girls or womens are people. and allot of feminist got this dubel standard how Girls are victims and men are the oppressors"
I decided to continue talking to this person, because I thought that debate is always good, right? I quite strongly disagreed, but like with you, I understand the cause for confusion. Many people do seem to believe that feminists are "man hating" which is where I think this person was coming from. I explain briefly how the patriarchy has negative effects on men, here, if you are interested.
"I completely disagree. All feminism really is, is moving towards the social, political and economic equality of the genders. It's not about labelling women as victims - although to be honest, they often are the ones being oppressed - and if you believe that women deserve the same rights as men, then you're a feminist. Otherwise, you're sexist."
I do realise now that the last part of that comment comes across as very bigoted, but what I was trying to convey was that if you believe in feminism, which I had already defined as the "social, political and economic equality of the genders" you aren't sexist, but if you do not believe that the genders should be socially, politically and economically equal then you are. And I stand by the point I tried to make if not the original post. The person replied as such:
"here we go again you are pulling the victim card .: im not a feminist and im not a sexist but fore you to say i have to be a feminist to believe in equality is bullshit i'm a humanist not a feminist get your facts straight"
At first I was a little thrown by the other person defining themselves as humanist as whilst I knew quite a bit about equalist and feminist, I needed to check my facts about humanism. So I did, and this is what I found out. I think, as you seem to have ideas similar to humanism and equalism, that it might be worth reading into this as well, but I briefly summarise it here.
"Firstly, where did I "pull the victim card"? I did mention that women are often oppressed, and I stand by that. It's not pulling a victim card to say that about one in four women will be sexually assaulted, that one in three women will be abused in a relationship, et cetera. I too, identify as a humanist. It is perfectly possible to identify as both. Most feminists do, and it is very difficult to be humanist and believe in equality, and to not be feminist and include women in that equality. Feminism is only different as, because of the fact that society is mostly patriarchal feminism has to have a clear agenda - unless misogyny is directly addressed an acted against then equalist and humanist activism will not be enough."
The other person commenting did not seem to take my point well - and seemed to believe that I insinuated that only women are victimised. And I agree, yes, horrible things happen to other people, but it does not take a lot of study of statistics, of stories, of looking at the world around; to realise that the patriarchy does exist and that life is often made more difficult for you as a woman. You can be humanist and say you want equal rights for all, certainly, but to do that you need to support those who are oppressed and that is where feminism comes in, supporting women so we can reach equality.
if you wanna take up oppressed so will i. girls get 50% less in jail for the same crime. one of four men get false rape accused who can ruin a Life. in child support the favor the woman over the man 100%. all this things i said now feminist don't give a shit about .. so dont tell me the got a angel agenda when they ignore this
This person helpfully provided me with some examples of how other people are oppressed, but as I said, that doesn't show that women are not oppressed. And he said that "feminist don't give a shit about" these issues - a) actually, feminism reaches far further than many would expect. For instance, male rape is a big issue for activism by feminists, and things like that. Feminism is about equality of the genders, and about not letting the patriarchy hurt people - including men and trans* people. b) there are issues that feminists don't necessarily actively campaign for as a group, which is why many feminists are equalists and humanists also, they just recognise that to be a feminist you support the equality of the genders and to be humanist you support other forms of equality. Subscribing to one does not stop you from being the other. I finally replied with this and decided to leave the conversation before it descended into hate.
When since did saying that some women are oppressed, imply that no one else is oppressed at all? And actually, approximately 2% of rape accusations transpire to be false.
I'm not accusing you of being a bad person, but perhaps this post might have informed you into why you should reconsider not being a feminist? All being a feminist means is supporting the social, economic and political equality of the genders, and well - I'm pretty sure that is something we should all support.
Bella
Saturday 26 April 2014
On Trichotillomania
And Why I Currently Have No Eyebrows
I have trichotollomania, or "trich" for short. It's an obsessive condition, which varies greatly in intensity - but no one really seems to know what it is. So, I'm going to talk about what it is, why people have it, my personal coping mechanisms, what it's like to live with "trich" and beg that somebody explain how to fill in eyebrows while I grow mine back.
First off, you're going to be nice and ignore the rubbish and pretentious picture (it turns out that being attractive or sexy really isn't my thing) and also not mock me for experimenting with black lipstick. It makes me happy, okay.
And now we discuss what "trich" really is. Trichotillomania also goes by trichotillosis and hair pulling disorder, and is the compulsive urge to pull out (and sometimes eat) your own hair, leading to noticeable hair loss, distress, social or functional impairment. My personally "pulling patches" are the crown of my head, my eyebrows, my nasal hair and occasionally my pubic hair and eyelashes. Other common areas for other sufferers include legs, arms and hands. It is an impulse control disorder and is very difficult to treat. Although anyone can be a trichotillomaniac, most people develop it between the ages of nine and thirteen. I personally started pulling at my eyelashes when I was around eleven, and I began pulling at my hair when I was in year eight, after I lost some hair due to a head wound. Only recently have I begun to obsessively pull my eyebrows (which used to be really full) and my pubic hair. It may be triggered by depression or stress, and due to social implications mostly goes unreported. It is more common in women than men. Some people with trich pull large handfuls at a time, whilst others pull strand by strand. Some inspect the strand, and about half the people with the condition put the strand in their mouths. Some people are aware of their pulling, others have virtually no idea that they are doing it until it is too late.
One of the hardest things about living with trich is the reactions you get. If a character in a book or film is pulling out their own hair, chances are that they are in a rage, and they are probably not a very nice character, either. From my own experience, people can't understand why you might pull out your own hair, and they wonder why you don't just stop. They don't understand how overwhelming the urge to pull is. If I'm on my laptop and I'm not typing quickly (like I'm doing now) then I'm pulling at my hair. Even if my hands are occupied - say I'm holding a pencil - I subconsciously run it through my hair and over my scalp. I have other compulsive habits, such as nail biting and chewing the little lumps inside my lips. When forced to stop, my hands run anxiously around each other and I often begin pinching knuckles, I fight so hard to not pull.
Why don't I just stop? It's obsessive. It can be linked to depression, anxiety or obsessive compulsive disorder - but the fact remains that it is actually a part of my brain chemistry. It's like turning a straight person to turn gay, or vice versa.
The stigma attached to hair pulling is often more difficult than the trichotillomania itself. It's embarrassing to have no eyebrows, I feel ashamed at my lack of self control. Mostly, though, it's concern over what others will think that causes these emotions. And it's so hurtful to assume that I have a choice in the matter. I look in a mirror and I examine my patchy eyebrows, in the fashion shots I took here I had to edit my parting because it got significantly wider where I pulled. I'm scared to upload this post, because I'm scared you'll think I'm insane and never read again. I'm scared. Why don't I stop? I can't. As if I could. As if I want this.
I personally don't pull enough from my scalp to wear a wig, but I do have other ways to hide things. For instance, after I pulled out my eyebrows pretty badly, I used my fringe to cover one and because I couldn't hide both, I wore a massive bow in my hair to distract attention. I'm considering cutting in a full fringe, just so that I can hide both eyebrows at once, but to be that feels like giving in. I also have coping mechanisms.
I didn't start this blog to combat trichotillomania (I don't think I knew what it was when I started blogging) but typing long posts very quickly in between work has been helpful because unlike writing, typing uses both hands. I also doodle. I have always been a doodler, but now I make sure I carry a sketch pad to class so that I can utilise paper immediately, without mucking up my Geography notes or whatever. I've moved the tweezers from by my bed, because I've found that I absent mindedly use them to pull at my eyebrows, but it's more difficult to stop head hair pulling because you use your fingers for that one. Sometimes, if it is really bad, I paint my nails. This not only takes up both of my hands to do, but also, I have to sit while they dry so that I don't get nail paint in my hair. If it's really bad, do another coat, or some nail art. It helps me, a little.
I don't think this post is very coherent. It probably isn't easy to read. It was horrific to write, and I don't have it in me to go back and ensure what I said make sense.
Goodbye for now, please don't leave me. I try not to be crazy.
Bella xx
(oh god, you have no idea how scared I am now)
I have trichotollomania, or "trich" for short. It's an obsessive condition, which varies greatly in intensity - but no one really seems to know what it is. So, I'm going to talk about what it is, why people have it, my personal coping mechanisms, what it's like to live with "trich" and beg that somebody explain how to fill in eyebrows while I grow mine back.
And now we discuss what "trich" really is. Trichotillomania also goes by trichotillosis and hair pulling disorder, and is the compulsive urge to pull out (and sometimes eat) your own hair, leading to noticeable hair loss, distress, social or functional impairment. My personally "pulling patches" are the crown of my head, my eyebrows, my nasal hair and occasionally my pubic hair and eyelashes. Other common areas for other sufferers include legs, arms and hands. It is an impulse control disorder and is very difficult to treat. Although anyone can be a trichotillomaniac, most people develop it between the ages of nine and thirteen. I personally started pulling at my eyelashes when I was around eleven, and I began pulling at my hair when I was in year eight, after I lost some hair due to a head wound. Only recently have I begun to obsessively pull my eyebrows (which used to be really full) and my pubic hair. It may be triggered by depression or stress, and due to social implications mostly goes unreported. It is more common in women than men. Some people with trich pull large handfuls at a time, whilst others pull strand by strand. Some inspect the strand, and about half the people with the condition put the strand in their mouths. Some people are aware of their pulling, others have virtually no idea that they are doing it until it is too late.
One of the hardest things about living with trich is the reactions you get. If a character in a book or film is pulling out their own hair, chances are that they are in a rage, and they are probably not a very nice character, either. From my own experience, people can't understand why you might pull out your own hair, and they wonder why you don't just stop. They don't understand how overwhelming the urge to pull is. If I'm on my laptop and I'm not typing quickly (like I'm doing now) then I'm pulling at my hair. Even if my hands are occupied - say I'm holding a pencil - I subconsciously run it through my hair and over my scalp. I have other compulsive habits, such as nail biting and chewing the little lumps inside my lips. When forced to stop, my hands run anxiously around each other and I often begin pinching knuckles, I fight so hard to not pull.
Why don't I just stop? It's obsessive. It can be linked to depression, anxiety or obsessive compulsive disorder - but the fact remains that it is actually a part of my brain chemistry. It's like turning a straight person to turn gay, or vice versa.
The stigma attached to hair pulling is often more difficult than the trichotillomania itself. It's embarrassing to have no eyebrows, I feel ashamed at my lack of self control. Mostly, though, it's concern over what others will think that causes these emotions. And it's so hurtful to assume that I have a choice in the matter. I look in a mirror and I examine my patchy eyebrows, in the fashion shots I took here I had to edit my parting because it got significantly wider where I pulled. I'm scared to upload this post, because I'm scared you'll think I'm insane and never read again. I'm scared. Why don't I stop? I can't. As if I could. As if I want this.
I personally don't pull enough from my scalp to wear a wig, but I do have other ways to hide things. For instance, after I pulled out my eyebrows pretty badly, I used my fringe to cover one and because I couldn't hide both, I wore a massive bow in my hair to distract attention. I'm considering cutting in a full fringe, just so that I can hide both eyebrows at once, but to be that feels like giving in. I also have coping mechanisms.
I didn't start this blog to combat trichotillomania (I don't think I knew what it was when I started blogging) but typing long posts very quickly in between work has been helpful because unlike writing, typing uses both hands. I also doodle. I have always been a doodler, but now I make sure I carry a sketch pad to class so that I can utilise paper immediately, without mucking up my Geography notes or whatever. I've moved the tweezers from by my bed, because I've found that I absent mindedly use them to pull at my eyebrows, but it's more difficult to stop head hair pulling because you use your fingers for that one. Sometimes, if it is really bad, I paint my nails. This not only takes up both of my hands to do, but also, I have to sit while they dry so that I don't get nail paint in my hair. If it's really bad, do another coat, or some nail art. It helps me, a little.
I don't think this post is very coherent. It probably isn't easy to read. It was horrific to write, and I don't have it in me to go back and ensure what I said make sense.
Goodbye for now, please don't leave me. I try not to be crazy.
Bella xx
(oh god, you have no idea how scared I am now)
Lush Herbalism: Review
Is This the World's Best Skincare Product?
I am a teenager, and since I turned eleven, I've had acne. Not awful acne, although sometimes pretty bad, but by the time I began using Herbalism, it had cleared up quite a bit. I had blackheads all over my nose and between my eyebrows, and one my chin and was prone to spots, especially around my period. I also have an oily t-zone and a dry forehead, and the rest of my skin is pretty average in terms of oil. What is a person to do?
LUSH makes several of these facial exfoliator and cleaner things, but Herbalism is the one recommended for people with oily skin or problem skin. Whilst it is for people with oily skin, though, it is not at all drying. It leaves the skin feeling supple, and not stripped of natural oil, which is good as if skin is stripped of this, it tends to overcompensate, leaving you with greasy skin.
I was recommended this product by a salesperson in LUSH, and have almost finished my second small tub of this stuff. I would definitely recommend buying the smaller tubs - for one, as a teenager it is easier to budget little amounts of money over time - but also because the ingredients are so natural, it only lasts about three or four months, depending on when your pot was made. If you cleanse twice a day, and occasionally forget, you can use the small pots within this time, but it might be a little bit of a push to finish the large pots.
First off, it's middle of the range in terms of price. One pot is £6.40, but believe me when I say it will go a long way. It is also a lot cheaper than other high street exfoliating cleaners such as the ones that Vichy does, and I think it works a lot more effectively. The packaging is sturdy and when you screw the lid on, is watertight so that the product is still effective after a long period of time.
It's a little odd - it a green thing - between a paste and crumbs; the more you use it the more it crumbles. You take a pinch of it, and you add a little water - just a few drops - and it becomes an mild, natural exfoliant and cleanser which goes a long way. It's gentle enough to use as an exfoliant morning and night. As a cleanser, it removes makeup on your skin, but if, like me, you use waterproof eye makeup or black lipstick *cough* probably just me *cough* then you might want to use a baby wipe to get the last of it off after using this product.
A lot of people commented on hating the smell. I find the smell reasonably innoffensive. Unlike their facial scrub for people with perfect skin - god, I hate those people - "Let the Good Times Roll" which smelt of popcorn-ey goodness, this product smells fresh, like herbs. It is not a strong smell at all, I personally approve.
This product is a natural exfoliant, which on sensitive or skin with acne, can be unpleasant or overly abrasive, leading to horrible pinpoint bleeding. Not so for Herbalism. This product does exfoliate effectively, but the give that natural ground almonds have over using beads that most exfoliators use make it nice and sensitive on your skin. I've washed my face with this with a bleeding lip, and it did not sting, which is blooming amazing, especially as the product contains nettle!
LUSH is renowned for fighting animal testing, being entirely vegetarian (this product is actually vegan), using only natural products and safe synthetics (this product uses entirely natural products), endorsing ethical buying and being handmade. This product is no different, and I personally greatly approve of this, and it means I can wash my face without feeling guilty.
No product is perfect, and this is no exception. The very green colour of this product can be a little messy when mixed with water, and so it can be a good idea to pull your emo fringe off your face to do this, and use your hands instead of a face cloth to avoid it being tinged green. It also might be a product to use before changing into your white dress for the day but considering you only need a tiny, weeny bit the damage is minimal.
Overall, I loved using Herbalism and will completely buy it again. I use it twice daily and have found that my blackheads are reduced, as are regular spots - but more importantly that my skin is always glowing and feels supple and soft.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)