Pages

Thursday, July 23, 2015

lack of perspective in Christianity

I really hate it when a man says to a woman, " I don't see what's wrong with society.  Why do we need feminism?"  Yeah.  As a woman, we don't need it in the U.S. TODAY.  We still need it internationally, and we needed it when the man said the same thing in the early 1900s. 


Christianity is sexist in that men have different roles than women and where those roles are undoubtedly better even though men and women are treated equally in rewards and punishments.  Those roles are chosen for men in the same way a person is simply born rich or privileged.  If a man begs to disagree, then would he agree to switch the places of men and women.  Consider this... mainly women as preachers, Jesus as a woman instead of a man, women leading men, and Eve being created first.  I'm jealous of man's current role in the bible because I perceive his roles as being above mine.  If you had the empathy to see my perspective, then you'd know the bible isn't equal.  It's one of the main reasons why I more than left Christianity, I spit on it.



Also, when SOME people mention seeing no problem with slavery so callously.  History has associated slavery with black people in our minds in America.  Yeah why don't we bring back slavery on the white people this time.  The South downplays slavery in its textbooks compared to textbooks of other states.  Some have stated it was even good for black people because they got free medical treatment and some form of care.  Yeah so what's wrong with slavery?  Let's have the rich do it instead.  Oh wait.  Minimum wage.  except more extremely ... Say perhaps Bill Cosby--a black man who raped "non consensually"-- own a bunch of white slaves or Oprah. 

Empathy is if you can feel yourself in their position.  There might be a slight problem if you are a masochist though. 

Lastly consider: http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things_The_Bible_Bans,_But_You_Do_Anyway





I don't understand from a logic perspective why you can simply pick and choose your way in a bible. 




Jesus says in Mark 7:18-23, food is okay, but in the old testament, shellfish isn't okay. 



Why can Jesus simply disagree with what was said in the old testament when other things in the old testament is still considered valid (Genesis, Noah's Ark, and the 10 commandments, other things Mosses did). 

I can only accept this if:
  1. Jesus acknowledges that a statement in the OT is wrong thus implying that Jesus is a separate entity from "God."   Unless the word detestable in the OT isn't as bad as I'm reading it to be.
  2. The OT is fallible and therefore every word included in the bible isn't infallible.  
  3. The bible isn't meant to be followed logically, only sentimentally.
  4.  I'm missing a piece of "cop out" passage from the bible.
  5. God changed his mind.  Jesus acknowledges this being part of or essentially "God." 








Sunday, July 19, 2015

Voting based on ONE platform: my anecdotal frustration with an older voter.

Is something I know my older relatives to do, and is something I think is the stupidest thing one can do.

I was sitting shotgun while my older aunt drove me back to the university.  She said she votes republican because she is against people getting benefits while not doing anything.  When I asked her if she believes in going to war.  She said no.  When I asked her about climate change.  She said she believed in it and that we should do something about it.  Those were the only two platforms I could think about at the time.  I didn't ask about gay rights, abortion, death penalty, guns, and drugs, but when I did ask about other platforms she may believe in, she didn't have any.  She votes Republican based on one platform and ignores all the other platforms even when there could be quantitatively more democratic platforms she could agree with or find important if she knew about.

It seems to me she only cares that the lazy people don't get any benefits (she may not be lazy, but she gets this support as well).  Nothing else matters to her, and she isn't even honest about the fact that this is the case. 

Don't vote for Bernie Sanders. Not yet.

Right to the point, don't vote for Bernie Sanders because he won't have a change against any Republican candidate running currently in the polls except Trump.  The right wing is garnering a surprising amount of support.  If in case a non extreme candidate wins as a Republican candidate, up against Bernie Sanders (a left extremist in this country) chances are that the electoral college will elect the moderate like they've always done. 

Progress is made slowly.  If you first punish the other side by consistently voting left.  The political atmosphere will veer left as a whole.  It is wrong to go to the extreme left immediately.  This will just pressure the leftist candidate (if he wins) to make serious leftist changes that will not be permanent.  It is time that we vote realistically and with forethought.  Let's cast away our thoughts for idealism and step in the direction of a better reality with the lesser of two evils--Clinton.  Let's patiently bear up with her mistakes and possible successes in the future and vote for a more progressive candidate when the political atmosphere acclimatizes to the left.






Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Biased grading

If you got something wrong then you were marked wrong.
But when someone else is wrong on the same thing, but was given a point anyways.

Similarly when you're marked wrong, but are right and when
another wrote the same right thing but was marked right.

And where this happens often.  

Let me remind you that it is harder to argue points back than it is to get them right in the first place.
Telling a person why they graded wrong is like telling them they're wrong and why you are more right.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Off my chest: cleanliness, roommates, marriage insight, Entitlement due to age or gender?

I lived in an apartment with two other people both men and where my cleanliness level was in the middle of the other two.  One was an old white man who worked on a board promoting Asian Art.  (No one on that board of directors was Asian.)  The other was a young dirty young Canadian who was super chill.

There are biases. I owned 1/4 the apartment and the other two were aware of that as subleasers.  However, they were leased to my 2 other friends who owned the other 1/4 and 1/4 shares of the home.  Where the last 1/4 share didn't sublease to anyone.

I am well aware of why they initially came to me first with their complaint--because I am one of the original leasers.  But despite this, I am still bothered by the way the old man whined a complaint to me on several occasions and by the way my friend just didn't handle the subleaser she was responsible for 2 years after it happened.

 Despite being an original leaser of the apartment, I never contacted these people through email or what not before they came into the apartment.  I was cool with whoever was staying in the apartment though.  But from my perspective, they were just roommates.  I had no more authority over the apartment than they did and they came into the apartment at the beginning of the lease before I did. 

When I came in the wifi was not set up.  Both of them asked me to set up the wifi on multiple occasions.  Even at this point I am put off by them.  It became my responsibility to set up the wifi immediately even though I didn't have to.  My friends were the ones who guaranteed wifi to those two men--not me.  Where is my obligation to set it up?

But If I didn't.  I'd get the sigh and a look from my friend-co-leaser.
I would ask her "what's wrong" and she'd say, "you're being immature."

Ok. then.
Weeks go by and the kitchen gets progressively dirtier.
I put away the trash and wipe the counter tops from time to time.
The Canadian man doesn't do a lick of chores besides cleaning his dishes with a never-washed towel.
I keep dishes in the sink throughout the day and wash them at the end of the day and I also don't use the dish washer (Many Asian-Americans don't use the dish washer me being one of them).  I had midterms one week and the dishes were stacked higher than usual.   The counter tops collect more grime than usual and the trash fills up.  There are colored spills on the washing machine while loading up dishes.  But both of us were unaware of this.  It became aware to us when the...

Old man comes directly to me and complains, "It's dirty.  The counter tops aren't clean.  The trash isn't taken out.  The dishes aren't being put away.  I worry for my health .  The rag doesn't look like it has been cleaned in ages.  I've been taking out the trash and wiping the counter tops all this time.  The cleanliness of this kitchen makes me fear for my life.  I'm actually worried about getting sick!  And the living room.  Why can't i use it?  and Why isn't there a place to store your dishes like a dish rack?"

He said this to me on two occasions and both times we had a long argument.
"Look," I said " I have been cleaning the dishes, but its a cultural thing to leave dishes in the sink.
He said, "then why can't you put them back?"
"It's CULTURAL" I said. "Also, I'm not the only one making the mess here.  (Canadian man) is also. and He's been making some of the mess. "

 When the Canadian man came home most of the conversation was over.  He came back 30 minutes later while we were talking and while the same complaints were made. He DOESN"T TELL HIM TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!!!! 
Canadian man was like "Yeah. I've been using that dirty dishrag. "
He admits he didn't clean.  This could be why the old man isn't mad at him.  I don't admit anything because I have been cleaning.   

Anyways, we assure him we'll clean a little now. 
Then, as old man goes back to his room.  We clean. 

Funny thing is my friend who currently studies masters in public health at Berkeley came to the apartment not too long before the conversation while the dishes were in the sink during midterms week to make food in the kitchen.  I asked her after this whole ordeal, "Was our kitchen a health safety concern? "  Her reply, "Not in the least bit! In fact it is.....(I can't remember)."   

Later that day, I complained to my friends who owned the lease.  The way they just take advantage of me is probably the reason why I am not friends with them now because they emailed the old man who complained back at them and told me to grin and bear it.  I pay the same rent they do and I am told to grin and bear it.  They tell the guy everything is going to be taken care of and tell me to grin and bear it.  They tell me he's just one of those guys, then tells me that the solution is to tell ME to be a little cleaner and to grin and bear it. 

I go buy a wire rack on the next day to appease the man.  I buy some dish washer soap because the old man demanded it.  Fuck the old man.  He wanted it right then and none of the other leasers were around. 

I tell him I bought a wire rack and then comes the second round. 
"Good."
I ask him, "Should I set up a list of chores?"
No response.
I explain to him that we must have different levels of cleanliness and that we should compromise. 
What does he say?
"You call this clean?  The counters are dirty.  The trash .....  I am fearing for my health!!"
I say "I have taken the trash out. The dishes are my problem but even that is cultural.  And the Canadian man is the only one who is doing something health detrimental." 
Throughout this conversation he repeats that the kitchen is dirty.
"Clean? This is not clean.."  He demands I do the chores.  He doesn't mention the Canadian man.
"Why aren't YOU cleaning up?"
I tell him "I AM cleaning the counters."
"Well why aren't you doing this or that?  Why is it so dirty?"
He tells me, "If you don't clean up I am not paying!!!!!! A basic level of cleanliness was stipulated in my contract."
He keeps repeating himself.  
 I try to calm him.  I try to be a good roommate like a blind man tells his parents he would work, but that he's blind.  I am that blind man.

All the time I try to tell him ok we will do this this and this.  If you do....
but he'd cut me off right there. 
He doesn't want to do anything. 
He keeps repeating his previous points, and then
I tell him, "Ok what evers.  I am not the one being paid for your spot.  I am paying my share of the lease on my own.  Take up your complaints with your leasers.  I am not above you.  You are simply my suitmate. And I didn't agree to what's in your contract."
He tells me, "Ok."
I implore him, "Why aren't you sorry? Aren't you sorry that you're wrong about your assumptions of me?"
He tells me, "I am not sorry and the kitchen is clean now. Keep it clean."
I forgot exactly how this conversation ended, but it left me madder.  It ended with a disagreement on what is clean.  He had the last say and it was something like, "you think this is clean?"
Everyone knew I was one of the lease holders.  It was my fault for taking leadership at first, but the contract is not my ordeal and my friends-co-lease holders didn't suggest anything on my behalf.  The things he said were the worst--his biases and that he wouldn't compromise and that his idea of clean didn't agree with at least 3 people's.  The situation itself was like any other married couple's.   

We only had a week left of living together so we let the fire smolder. 
My friend-leasers told me to just be patient. 


Wisdom and Biases gained:
  • Older people aren't necessarily wiser, not immediately more deserving of respect.
  • I became less sympathetic to men after this moment.  First, I kind of took this man's demand that I(and not the Canadian) do the chores with all the "you. you you's" as an attack because I am a woman who is expected to do chores.  I took it this way because all women I know who are of older parent's age do the cooking and cleaning without exception.  My mom complained to my dad to clean every year.  Eventually my dad conceded, but aside from cleanliness levels that needs compromise, cooked food was an expectation that my father had of my mother.  I didn't like how he found me more at fault for this ordeal.  I've been cleaning too! is probably the main point I was mad about and the fact that he complained over the suggestion of splitting up chores evenly thus assigning him some as well.  He expected out of me a solution of doing all the chores myself and didn't find the other person equally culpable.  He was out of town so he can exclude himself in the mess.     
  • I kind of learned that there are men who embody negative stereotypes of women: emotionality over reason and the stereotype of being cleaner and enforcing chores on husbands.
      • Not necessarily illogical, but pigheaded:
        • He doesn't believe in compromising cleanliness.
        • He assumes neither I nor the Canadian man has done the chores he claims to have done.
        • He assumes I make the rules in the household.
        • He expects action by complaining.  He doesn't want to divide out chores or compromise.
        • He makes assumptions on health safety.  3 people who has seen the kitchen think the kitchen is safe vs himself only. 
        • I forgot to mention that he was constantly demanding that I buy cleaning supplies.  What sort of sublease agreement stipulate cleaning supplies like a dish rack?  And why do I have to provide it?  He demands some scrubbing equipment a bucket and stuff based on a contract I didn't see. He assumes that I have to provide him with cleaning supplies used in American culture.  Why should I buy a dish rack when my Asian household uses the dish washer as a dish rack.  There's your dish rack.  Why should I buy dish washer soap when I don't use the dish washer?  A cleanliness level has been stipulated without my agreement and  I bet it sure as hell doesn't specify cleaning equipment. 
  • However, I learned that I shouldn't automatically assume something about my future roommates as he has of me.  This old board member said I didn't do any chores.  The reality is that I have done the chores he mentioned.  He would just ignore me when I said I did and say that the kitchen is still dirty.  Reality is, if I hadn't done any,  the kitchen would be a lot messier. 
I want to judge the hell out of this old board member.  I am speaking from emotion from now on.  He is stupid.  He is illogical and he doesn't listen.  He is biased.  He looks at me with entitlement and demands that I clean probably because I am way shorter (thus less threatening until I proved him wrong), Asian, and a woman.  Maybe because I am a woman he expects me to clean.  Maybe because I am a short Asian on top of that that he expects me to be good at it sweatshop worker style.  The way he looks at me, I think he thinks I am a that female cook at the back of a Chinese restaurant.  And when I look at him, I see a white fundamentalist republican slave owning baby booming elitist one percenter.  Not realistically.  Basically, in him, I see everything that I hate.  Realistically, a tall white man who for all his life thinks he is special, but is born privileged, and looks at his life without perspective.  A capitalist and religious man by teaching never questioning its doctrines.  A man without critical thinking or logic.  "Someone has just got to suffer the manual labor work (Talking about Chinese mass production manual labor) under capitalism," he literally said.  A man who hates change.   A grey haired baby boomer who gained all there is to gain from an expanding nation with no thought for the consequences.  A man who votes that public funding go toward social security because he is ready to receive it.  A man who works on a board promoting Asian art where no one else among 20 ish board members are Asian.   He's not the kind of father who murdered a man who drunk killed his son.  But he is the kind of man who voted for G.W. Bush and pushed for war believing without question that the war in Iraq was because of terrorism and who now believes he was never wrong.  It's hard to tell who's worse. 







 

Saturday, March 14, 2015

Bullying

A strong and introspective person will admit they have bullied and reconcile with their victim(s).
A common person would say they have been bullied and not realize they have bullied.  
The ones who have been bullied harshly won't say anything at all.

 

Saturday, February 14, 2015

Kingsman 3/5

Elizabeth Weitzmen
" The violence flies repellently over the top, and the finale features an extended joke so insanely sexist it sends us out on a seriously sour note."

 Chris Cabin
" It's structured in familiar, safe terms, plays for very low stakes, and appeals to no one so much as white, male teenagers with chips on their shoulders."

Donald Clarke
"Though competently acted and lushly upholstered, this childish film is let down by bold-type irony: so bludgeoning that it ceases to merit the description. "


It is a movie made for white men with chips on their shoulders that spits in the eye of minorities, women, and science in all its childlike wonders.

Go ahead argue with me... It's set in Britain.

But it is the British that saves the world.  No one else questioned Mr. Valentine's ploy--not AT&T, not Verizon, and certainly not Comcast.  How could they?  It was free wifi!!!!  How did Mr. Valentine get his money?  I suppose it doesn't matter... because he happened to exist to begin with.  I will give him that.  But alas! The saviors of the world are a group of only white people while the only colored people present were as evil doers.

Strange too.. How is such an ingenious device that produces free wifi created?  Seriously... Connection is only as good as the cell towers that exists in the area, so how does the implantation of a chip in one's head create a signal?  If Mr. Valentine bought all the cell towers then shouldn't everyone's head be sharing the available wifi thus making connection slow.

Mr. Valentine's goals were noble, but misguided.  He wanted to do something about climate change, so he decided on population control.  From the perspective of a human, his actions were evil.  But from the perspective of a chicken intelligent enough to comprehend what was going on, the death of humans is neither good nor bad--infact possibly good because the chicken will have a higher probability of living.  By us being here today, we are bringing about a mass extinction of other species.  Mr. Valentine goes about his plan picking up celebrities along the way all of whom agree with his plan for mass extinction.  In effect, Mr. Valentine is playing God.  This is the only aspect of Mr. Valentine that I consider wicked, but no more so than the celebrities who also selfishly choose themselves over others.  In the end, Valentine dies, but Climate change is still a problem.

In fact the ending is a massive problem, from a feminist's and adult's perspective.  In the end, Eggie saves the world and gets his prize, anal sex from the princess.  Not only is the princess merely a prize to be saved for our hero.  Her value to the hero was only for the sex she can provide because of the only merit she has, her looks.  She may be brave enough to disagree with Mr. Valentine, but Eggie doesn't know that.  I don't think Roxy belongs with Eggsy.  I think Eggsy thinks of her as a sister colleague that he respects more.  In all aspects related to Roxy, I see only praiseworthy things.  Gazelle is pretty bad ass too.  Even though it didn't pass the Bechtel test, I can see this movie being neutral in terms of gender discrimination aside from the ending.  Good and bad exists in all degrees in both sexes. 

I thought it was childish when everyone was chanting Eggsy's name.  Remember the "Eggsy, Eggsy, Eggsy!" or the "Good job Eggsy!"  or the "Great Job Eggsy!" A young boy who had a chip in his shoulder surely needs encouragement not Roxy, not Merlin, not anyone else.  Why did Merlin not join the frey? so that only Eggsy could say he took out Mr. Valentine's WHOLE FUCKING ARMY! without a scratch--just a tie cut in half.  Talk about unrealistic.  Eggsy is infallible, but Harry Hart was.  He made the most rookie mistakes.  He caused Eggsy's father to die, and he went to visit the professor without any precautions!!! Maybe Harry couldn't predict the explosion, but I could predict some sort of disaster.  Also, why the hell did Harry not scout out the church before entering it? or the gala before realizing it was cancelled?  How could he simply accept a burger at Mr. Valentine's place?  (To trust the enemy with no caution as a spy?) And why would Mr. Valentine need to place a track Harry's movement when he knows where Kingsmen HQ is by that old leader of the Kingsmen who agreed to help him with his plan for population control?  Harry is fallible, so he died.  Roxy is fallible because she has fears, and the world is fallible for falling easily for Mr. Valentine's ploy.  Eggsy's mom is fallible because she put her life in the dumpster.  When Eggsy is fallible, reckless, he is only fallible for a reason.  He steals cars and gets into fights because his life is in the dumpster.  Also, why was Eggsy's suit made even though he failed to become a Kingsmen and Roxy's not? Why was all of Eggsy's weaponry created and prepared for him on that plane when he clearly failed?  Why did he wear those glasses in the end when he has okay eye sight?  Why does he dress so obviously like a Kingsmen in the lair of the enemy who has seen Harry dressed the exact same way???

This movie also plays on gendered sometimes racial stereotypes therefore it is by its nature unoriginal.  Let me name a few: evil man with a lisp and his hot ninja secretary, a white boy with a chip in his shoulder, the Hermoine Granger, the hot slut at the end, the abusive father and failing single mother, the predominantly white male "knights."  The media has yet to show the predominantly Asian troop of Kingsmen who save the world, the Hispanic girl with a chip on her shoulder who is reckeless in driving and does parkour as good as Eggie, the hot black male ninja secretary, and the evil white man dressed in threads from the hoods complete with baseball cap tipped to the side (in other words, an evil slim shady).        



TL;DR
  •  Climate change still exists.  Problem not solved.
  • Eggsy didn't suffer a scratch from his battles. 
  • Harry Hart makes the most rookie mistakes that Eggsy doesn't make.    
  • Contains Racist/Sexist stereotypes.  

Reason for 3/5

  • +3 stars: Entertaining and engaging.
  • +1 star: Film has crisp visuals, not distracting, adds to mood, no shaky cam.  
  • -1 star: for all the problems and inconsistencies above.
  • +0 stars: no out of the ordinary artistic quality.     

anytime I say Kingsmen I mean Kingsman because of course you know, there is only one Kingsman.  


  

Tuesday, February 3, 2015

Islamaphobia and MRAs

These two thing have something important in common, generalization.

I believe men's rights activist groups originated as a defensive reaction to accusations by feminists groups on the reality of sexism.  For example, we should tell men not to rape because men do the raping.  I bet that most men do the raping while the victims are both men and women.  I don't have the statistics, but I bet you that percent is over 70%.  Hence, men produce most of the grievances in rape.  But in the total amount of rapes in the US of which most are probably perpetrated by men, many of them are probably serial rapists.  Hence, it is not quantity of men, it's a few men with a quantity of rapes.  But men must accept the facts, that they as a demographic are doing the raping.  Also, we should tell both men and women to not rape because both are capable of doing it and because we already tell them not to murder (at least in Christian schools they do (Thou shall not...)).   This epiphany came when I read a really enlightening Reddit post that said that the problem with men is not all men, it is just a few men who do it all the time.  Nonetheless, where we are today is the fault of both men and women who don't look at the statistics closely: by not thoroughly examining whenever cited in comments how many of rapists are repeat offenders and by not putting numbers into perspective out of the entire population.

 *To clarify: I don't mean that rape statistics are all serial rapists.  I just mean to say that rape statistics aren't analyzed well and that sexism (such as catcalling) is the problem of a few men who do it all the time. 

Just like blaming all men and telling them not to rape because some men choose to rape is Islamaphobia:

Those who hate on Islam and blame its people for not taking responsibility for the terrorist group who kills in its name are of the same mindset as feminists who blame men without carefully analyzing the statistics and still assign blame.  I bet most Muslims do not condone the actions of the terrorist group and if they don't care, it is not in our place to attack them for not caring.  The only acceptable mindset if you do choose to blame them is to also blame yourself if you follow a dogma that has committed atrocities.  For example, if you are Christian, you must blame yourself for the crusade.  I believe many (but not every) become atheists because they did blame themselves, asking the question: "Why would I follow a religion that has killed so many people in the past?" followed with "If this religion killed so many before, what reason do I have to believe it won't do so in the future?"