The suggested topic for this blog post was writing with authority. Something I can understand is needed in non-fiction works. In fictional works--my specialty--the only authority needed is a strong voice for either the third person narrator or the main character narrating the story via first person. In those settings, the author need only exercise the specific force of personality necessary to the story's world view and thematic overview--in addition to a compelling plot--to get the reader interested enough to read the work. In non-fiction, that is a different story.
Truth be told, non-fiction authors have to create their own either through marketing or titles that may or may not be genuine; and trust me: Many times, the non-fiction author's life station and level of expertise is nowhere near the stable level of reality. If you don't believe me, just pick up any book in the Religion or Self-Help section of the bookstore. In those cases, any schmuck with enough charisma and a big enough following can write with authority because there are several people desperate enough to believe him or her. I find that to be truly unfortunate.
So where does that leave me? I'm just a lowly college student writing a few papers for various classes out of the whimsies of the different professors assigning them. Sure, I can write fairly well and throw in the force of will and style necessary to make a paper marginally compelling; but I do not really speak with authority on the subjects I am forced to write about. Truth be told, despite whatever knowledge I may possess on any particular topic, I am nowhere near the level of expert on any of these ideas, which harms my credibility in the end. The fact that I oftentimes do not possess the most popular opinion in the collective makes it even more difficult for me to be believed in regards to some of my world views.
But I digress. I guess authority in writing is something that is earned, not given; gained through years of experience. A lesson that the self help new agey authors managed to acquire in their decades of proselytization. But I'm no expert. It's only a theory.
LVX Amor!
Chris
Friday, January 30, 2015
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
04 Doc 1 (More on Police Violence)
In this age of fast cars, fast women and fast food; people are getting angrier. Much angrier. And the consequences of such anger are affecting our society now more than ever before. On the subject of police violence, this rising anger is even more noticeable. Civilians are being angered by cops being angered by angry civilians committing crimes out of anger. As such, angry cops overreact to the threats of angry citizens and commit cold blooded murders in said anger, trying to relieve it; but they can't. Truly it is a vicious cycle. Angry people commit crimes all the time, but when said people get angrier, the police get even more enraged as they try to deal with such anger in the normal lives of angry people and--like I said--then commit murders in response to the outbursts. I think I basically repeated myself there.
So remember: If you are suffering from murderous rage, you should find a healthy channel for it. Fire a weapon into your television set. Pick a fight with someone weaker than you. Or even write a threatening letter to a celebrity. But whatever you do, avoid displaying such anger at even angrier police officers. For they will murder you and then get away with it. Becauser they are cops and you aren't.
I hope this has been enlightening.
Chris
So remember: If you are suffering from murderous rage, you should find a healthy channel for it. Fire a weapon into your television set. Pick a fight with someone weaker than you. Or even write a threatening letter to a celebrity. But whatever you do, avoid displaying such anger at even angrier police officers. For they will murder you and then get away with it. Becauser they are cops and you aren't.
I hope this has been enlightening.
Chris
Monday, January 26, 2015
03 Doc1 (Thoughts of Police Violence)
Due to the ever-changing whims of my (in)famous professor, my Composition II class has just been assigned a topic for our first term paper. And what sort of topic did my professor provide? Why! If my dear readers simply directed their gaze to the title of this post, they would see it for themselves. Yes. I am going there. Violence by police against citizens. Sigh... Let's just get this over with.
After the incidents with Michael Brown and another fine gentleman (whose name currently escapes me) that was strangled to death after being put into a chokehold by New York City police officers, the issue of violence committed by our "boys in uniform" has gained a staggering amount of attention in the media (both news and social). Simply put, these two unarmed African American men were killed by police officers who considered them suspicious enough to warrant a confrontation. Michael Brown was gunned down while the other man was suffocated. The ensuing riots in Ferguson and New York also caught the attention of the media from various angles. Conservitive media outlets supported the shootings, condemned the riots and discarded any notion that the deaths were racially motivated. Liberal media outlets did the exact opposite. Other news sources were bewildered on what stance to take as the controversy escalated.
In my own experience, I've continuously seen even more reports on deaths by police against unarmed citizens--thanks, in part, to my left-wing activist friends--on my Facebook account and the numbers of unreported killings is quite astounding. And frankly, I find it sickening.
Much of this controversy stems from the fact that the victims of these attacks were African-American men; leading to speculation of police racism as a motivating factor. I find myself in agreement with this. It's been common knowledge for years before the controversy started that the black community generally feared local and state police out of an assumption that the police specifically targeted them. As a caucasian male from the suburbs, I didn't think much of it all those years before, but in light of the recent attacks, I can see that race just might be an influence.
Even more so, the number of killings that have not exploded on the media is just as frightening. While I cannot remember specifics about any particular outside attack, I am appalled by this. I am also appalled with the fact that most cops get away with killing unarmed civilians. After all, grand juries tend not to indict officers, as history has proven. To the uninformed citizen--a category I am somewhat part of--it would appear that cops operate on a different level of the judicial system than average civilians. This is made even more shocking since the slaying unarmedman killed in New York was captured on video tape and the officers responsible still were not indicted. That's a horrifying scenario.
As I drive down major streets and see sherriffs and so on driving past me, I become frightened, not only of being pulled over, but also, of being assaulted should I get pulled over and say one thing out of line, unintentionally. Certainly, this is not a good sign of the times.
In the end, as much as I like the prospect of being saved by the police should my house get broken into--Goddess Forbid!--I also despise the idea that my own life could be endangered by those same people should I be in the wrong situation. Sure, I am not involved in any kind of crime at the moment, but misunderstandings happen all the time (as I have seen on true crime television shows like Forensic Files), and that always worries me.
Blessed be.
Christopher
After the incidents with Michael Brown and another fine gentleman (whose name currently escapes me) that was strangled to death after being put into a chokehold by New York City police officers, the issue of violence committed by our "boys in uniform" has gained a staggering amount of attention in the media (both news and social). Simply put, these two unarmed African American men were killed by police officers who considered them suspicious enough to warrant a confrontation. Michael Brown was gunned down while the other man was suffocated. The ensuing riots in Ferguson and New York also caught the attention of the media from various angles. Conservitive media outlets supported the shootings, condemned the riots and discarded any notion that the deaths were racially motivated. Liberal media outlets did the exact opposite. Other news sources were bewildered on what stance to take as the controversy escalated.
In my own experience, I've continuously seen even more reports on deaths by police against unarmed citizens--thanks, in part, to my left-wing activist friends--on my Facebook account and the numbers of unreported killings is quite astounding. And frankly, I find it sickening.
Much of this controversy stems from the fact that the victims of these attacks were African-American men; leading to speculation of police racism as a motivating factor. I find myself in agreement with this. It's been common knowledge for years before the controversy started that the black community generally feared local and state police out of an assumption that the police specifically targeted them. As a caucasian male from the suburbs, I didn't think much of it all those years before, but in light of the recent attacks, I can see that race just might be an influence.
Even more so, the number of killings that have not exploded on the media is just as frightening. While I cannot remember specifics about any particular outside attack, I am appalled by this. I am also appalled with the fact that most cops get away with killing unarmed civilians. After all, grand juries tend not to indict officers, as history has proven. To the uninformed citizen--a category I am somewhat part of--it would appear that cops operate on a different level of the judicial system than average civilians. This is made even more shocking since the slaying unarmedman killed in New York was captured on video tape and the officers responsible still were not indicted. That's a horrifying scenario.
As I drive down major streets and see sherriffs and so on driving past me, I become frightened, not only of being pulled over, but also, of being assaulted should I get pulled over and say one thing out of line, unintentionally. Certainly, this is not a good sign of the times.
In the end, as much as I like the prospect of being saved by the police should my house get broken into--Goddess Forbid!--I also despise the idea that my own life could be endangered by those same people should I be in the wrong situation. Sure, I am not involved in any kind of crime at the moment, but misunderstandings happen all the time (as I have seen on true crime television shows like Forensic Files), and that always worries me.
Blessed be.
Christopher
Friday, January 23, 2015
02 Recent Argument (or The Dangers of Machismo)
(In keeping with the post suggestions--from Workshop 2--for this class blog, I have decided to let inspiration lead my way, so I decided to post about a recent argument of mine as the subject of this post, with a few side notes after the argument's description on why I believe my point to be valid. A warning: This is a long post, so be prepared. And I tend to speak in generalities, without worry of semantics. So please keep that in mind. Enjoy!)
So there I was, a week ago from this Friday evening, thoroughly strained by the monuments of classwork pressed upon my shoulders by the sadistic wills of some of my professors, at a Gay Bar in West Palm Beach, sitting on a bar stool with a watery Bacardi and Cola (minus the Bacardi, as I do not drink alcohol) in hand, being perfectly invisible to the scene of revelry, mirth and debauchery unfolding around me like a drunken Bacchanalia as celebrated in the glory days of Rome--before it was assaulted by the constraints of the newly formed Catholic Church--completely blending into the environment and absorbing the energies of the effeminate merrymakers like the Nectar and Ambrosia of the Olympian Gods, thoroughly enjoying myself; when lo and behold, a tall, rugged man of fine proportions and comely features sits next to me and takes a good long look at me, fully bewitched.
I am no stranger to being the object of attention--and given my Histrionic nature, I tend to encourage it--so I met this man in the eyes and winked at him in a gesture of flirtatiousness, knowing full well that I would do nothing with this man other than accept brief compliments and refuse his advances altogether.
And like the psychic I am, this man's advances were predictably the kind that I would always refuse. After introducing his entirely forgettable name and bragging that he is a former Navy Seal and retired sports coach (supposedly from a major athletic corporation, though I sincerely doubted that), he attempted to sell himself off as a "man's man" full of strength and masculinity, compared to the more effeminate gay men that usually frequented the establishment, and then make his offer to me: An intimate activity that I found altogether grotesque and distasteful. So I told him so, politely refusing his advances, motioning to walk away and find another secluded spot for myself.
What followed next turned into the argument.
The man said something to the effect of: "Excuse me, princess. I'm trying to show you a good time and you turn me down? You better remember this the next time a real man makes an offer and you act like a sissy little girl."
To which I respond along the lines of: "A sissy girl? News flash: You are in the middle of a gay bar trying to pick up a guy. You're not as macho as you think you are."
"I am a former Navy Seal," was his approximate reply, "I come from the finest specimens of men on earth and I have no interest in dainty queens."
"You came onto me, buddy. And outside of your ego, I really don't care how tough you think you are. [Insert Unpleasant Intimacy] is gross," said I, "And that has nothing to do with being effeminate. Besides, if you think being manly involves putting down people more in touch with their emotions, you are grossly out of line. A man shouldn't be defined by outdated gender norms, anyways."
"Your such a [insert derogatory swear]," said the idiot, "It's people like you that are destroying true masculinity altogether, trying to get men to be soft and weak."
I retorted with my own curse and promptly walked away, my evening having been spoiled.
(Now, before I go any further, a little explanation might be in order for those of my readers not directly involved in the gay subculture. For starters, the stereotype that all gay men are fluttery and dramatic (while not as widespread as many would believe) does, indeed, apply to several men in that community. Furthermore, there are even more straight acting men in the community who--in an effort to distance themselves from said stereotype--refer to themselves as "masc men" and go out of their way to be seen as butch, silently fearful that they will be seen as epicene for their orientation. Given this context, the above conversation is not as unusual as one not versed in this specialty might think.)
All of this left me in quite the mood with myriad thoughts and words, swarming my mentation for the next few days, overjoyed to be assigned an outlet for this in class.
Because here's the thing: Men and women simply are not treated equally by the standards of society. Both sexes are suppressed by gender roles that are equally harmful. We all know the roles: Men are hunters and women are gatherers. Men go to war while women stay behind. Men are the breadwinners while women are the homemakers. Men embody logic while women uphold intuition. Men project and women receive. The roles remain the same.
As the modern feminist movement cries out: Women are discouraged from being independent from men, from making their own choices about their reproductive health and from being paid equally in comparison to their male counterparts in the work force. They are encouraged to look pretty and dumb themselves down in hopes of receiving attention, encouraged to warp their bodies into cliche standards of beauty. Women are generally thought of as the weaker sex, more often victims of violent crimes and given more leeway in expressing their emotions.
Men, on the contrary, are meant to be the opposite of this. Men are supposed make money and be in charge, are encouraged to be sexually active (when a woman exhibiting the same behavior will be shamed as a harlot), they are seen as more intelligent in chauvinistic circles and given leeway in regards to their appearance. They are seen as the stronger sex, the perpetrators of above mentioned violent crimes, as well as the ones who save the day; and are (most importantly) not allowed to show any weakness whatsoever. This last part I find to be wholly disruptive.
Simply put, as terrible as female roles can be for the women subjected to them (Seriously, I am as feminist as they come, but those topics are already widely discussed and not the point of this blog post) ; Men do not have it any easier. In my life, I have been continually looked down upon for not upholding the idea of machismo. If I speak in the "gay lisp", either purposefully or accidentally, I am given strange looks. If I refuse to get into a fight, I am referred to in derogatory remarks. If I appear sensitive or show emotion in a trying time, I am told to "Man Up" and stop being such a "Fairy". If I profess to enjoy some media aimed for women, people say that I am "Such a queen". And so on and so forth.
Face it. Men are barely given flexibility when it comes to being in touch with with the softer aspects of themselves. Don't believe me? Turn on a horror movie and you will see what I mean. Any scary movie will do. Now the traditional formula for Slasher films is that a killer will stalk a bunch of teenagers and knock off each one throughout the picture, save for one pretty brunette who usually manages to either escape the killer or even defeat him in some final, grisly battle to the death.
You may ask me for the point, but I think it should be obvious. Think on it? When was the last time you saw a man in a horror movie react in fear or cry in the face of the killer? You haven't. The men either are the killers, are not absent in the final fight, save the brunette from death or when they are killed, they are never given a moment to show just how scared they are. They're killed off before they can express any trepidation. If they do show emotion, it is a shout of violent protest against their attacker; never begging for mercy, but cursing them out instead. And heaven forbid a man cry sincerely in one of these movies outside of an attempt at comedy. Because you will not see that at all.
And what does this example mean? Why it's another way in which men are subjected to their gender roles. They aren't allowed to be emotional, even in the most stressful of times. It is clearly a double standard at the very least.
I recently read the results of a survey that stated the annual suicide rates between men and women. Turns out that suicides in men are three times higher than that of women. This might surprise some, but for others, it makes sense. When men are discouraged from having any outlet to their feeling natures either reacting emotionally or discussing their feelings, the weaker minded of them will succumb to their inner darknesses. It really is a shame.
And what becomes of those roles as the LGBT community gains more visibility? Simply put, this subculture's very existence contradicts age old cliches on gender norms. Now while many people will ask me (my being a member of this community, after all) if there are male and female roles in my personal romantic relationships--as a way of consolidating the ancient stereotypes--the simple truth is that (at least for me) there aren't any gender roles in those relationships. My partner and I variate between doing domestic chores and working jobs, between being logical and emotional, and even between being a "Man's Man" and a "Sissy Little Girl". We keep an internal balance.
Which truly shocked me in my encounter with Mr. Whatshisname McStupidhead. Most of the gay people I know personally aren't really too worried about being seen as either masculine or effeminate, because they maintain their own balance of sex qualities within; as do I. But this guy had placed all of his identity in being seen as manly and tough, lashing out at me when I suggested this didn't have to be the case. In fact, I found his attitudes rather offensive.
There are positives to both gender roles, do not get me wrong. While women are encouraged to be loving, nurturing and supportive of their families; men are encouraged to be strong, emotionally stable, dependable and leaders of their personal spheres. There is nothing wrong with those assumptions.
My point is that the negative gender roles can have a terrible impact on people and, even more so, trying one's hardest to avoid such cliches put one in an even bigger cliche: That of the Chauvanist who thinks he is superior to others he deems weaker. This man is so worried about appearing womanly that he verbally abuses men with those qualities. If he shuns men who are in touch with their sensitive sides, how do you expect this moron to treat actual women? I do not know this man personally, but I should expect him to act in a bigoted way towards them.
My point is that these gender roles can be inherently sexist, something I tried to convince this idiot underneath all of my other rhetoric to him. A man like him, so afraid of being perceived as feminine, ends up becoming a misogynist in the end. Soon after, such attitudes degrade into an ugly cycle of basic prejudice.
I rest my case.
Hail the Blue God!
Good night.
Because here's the thing: Men and women simply are not treated equally by the standards of society. Both sexes are suppressed by gender roles that are equally harmful. We all know the roles: Men are hunters and women are gatherers. Men go to war while women stay behind. Men are the breadwinners while women are the homemakers. Men embody logic while women uphold intuition. Men project and women receive. The roles remain the same.
As the modern feminist movement cries out: Women are discouraged from being independent from men, from making their own choices about their reproductive health and from being paid equally in comparison to their male counterparts in the work force. They are encouraged to look pretty and dumb themselves down in hopes of receiving attention, encouraged to warp their bodies into cliche standards of beauty. Women are generally thought of as the weaker sex, more often victims of violent crimes and given more leeway in expressing their emotions.
Men, on the contrary, are meant to be the opposite of this. Men are supposed make money and be in charge, are encouraged to be sexually active (when a woman exhibiting the same behavior will be shamed as a harlot), they are seen as more intelligent in chauvinistic circles and given leeway in regards to their appearance. They are seen as the stronger sex, the perpetrators of above mentioned violent crimes, as well as the ones who save the day; and are (most importantly) not allowed to show any weakness whatsoever. This last part I find to be wholly disruptive.
Simply put, as terrible as female roles can be for the women subjected to them (Seriously, I am as feminist as they come, but those topics are already widely discussed and not the point of this blog post) ; Men do not have it any easier. In my life, I have been continually looked down upon for not upholding the idea of machismo. If I speak in the "gay lisp", either purposefully or accidentally, I am given strange looks. If I refuse to get into a fight, I am referred to in derogatory remarks. If I appear sensitive or show emotion in a trying time, I am told to "Man Up" and stop being such a "Fairy". If I profess to enjoy some media aimed for women, people say that I am "Such a queen". And so on and so forth.
Face it. Men are barely given flexibility when it comes to being in touch with with the softer aspects of themselves. Don't believe me? Turn on a horror movie and you will see what I mean. Any scary movie will do. Now the traditional formula for Slasher films is that a killer will stalk a bunch of teenagers and knock off each one throughout the picture, save for one pretty brunette who usually manages to either escape the killer or even defeat him in some final, grisly battle to the death.
You may ask me for the point, but I think it should be obvious. Think on it? When was the last time you saw a man in a horror movie react in fear or cry in the face of the killer? You haven't. The men either are the killers, are not absent in the final fight, save the brunette from death or when they are killed, they are never given a moment to show just how scared they are. They're killed off before they can express any trepidation. If they do show emotion, it is a shout of violent protest against their attacker; never begging for mercy, but cursing them out instead. And heaven forbid a man cry sincerely in one of these movies outside of an attempt at comedy. Because you will not see that at all.
And what does this example mean? Why it's another way in which men are subjected to their gender roles. They aren't allowed to be emotional, even in the most stressful of times. It is clearly a double standard at the very least.
I recently read the results of a survey that stated the annual suicide rates between men and women. Turns out that suicides in men are three times higher than that of women. This might surprise some, but for others, it makes sense. When men are discouraged from having any outlet to their feeling natures either reacting emotionally or discussing their feelings, the weaker minded of them will succumb to their inner darknesses. It really is a shame.
And what becomes of those roles as the LGBT community gains more visibility? Simply put, this subculture's very existence contradicts age old cliches on gender norms. Now while many people will ask me (my being a member of this community, after all) if there are male and female roles in my personal romantic relationships--as a way of consolidating the ancient stereotypes--the simple truth is that (at least for me) there aren't any gender roles in those relationships. My partner and I variate between doing domestic chores and working jobs, between being logical and emotional, and even between being a "Man's Man" and a "Sissy Little Girl". We keep an internal balance.
Which truly shocked me in my encounter with Mr. Whatshisname McStupidhead. Most of the gay people I know personally aren't really too worried about being seen as either masculine or effeminate, because they maintain their own balance of sex qualities within; as do I. But this guy had placed all of his identity in being seen as manly and tough, lashing out at me when I suggested this didn't have to be the case. In fact, I found his attitudes rather offensive.
There are positives to both gender roles, do not get me wrong. While women are encouraged to be loving, nurturing and supportive of their families; men are encouraged to be strong, emotionally stable, dependable and leaders of their personal spheres. There is nothing wrong with those assumptions.
My point is that the negative gender roles can have a terrible impact on people and, even more so, trying one's hardest to avoid such cliches put one in an even bigger cliche: That of the Chauvanist who thinks he is superior to others he deems weaker. This man is so worried about appearing womanly that he verbally abuses men with those qualities. If he shuns men who are in touch with their sensitive sides, how do you expect this moron to treat actual women? I do not know this man personally, but I should expect him to act in a bigoted way towards them.
My point is that these gender roles can be inherently sexist, something I tried to convince this idiot underneath all of my other rhetoric to him. A man like him, so afraid of being perceived as feminine, ends up becoming a misogynist in the end. Soon after, such attitudes degrade into an ugly cycle of basic prejudice.
I rest my case.
Hail the Blue God!
Good night.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
01 Introduction (Albeit, Slightly Off-Centered)
In my life, I have held many minute, yet personal, philosophies on life and living. Now some of them are fairly basic (such as my belief that Goodness is Always Repaid with More Good somewhere down the road) that most people will generally agree with. However, I hold two such philosophies very dearly to my heart. They are as follows:
1. Being a little Strange can be quite endearing in the right situation, as it unveils personality in the "Looney Toon" in question.
And 2. Pride in one's self is not inherently sinful. It should come naturally to men and women that they hold at least some aspect of themselves in high esteem. After all, who else is going to do that for you?
But I digress. My point, based off of my distinct world views, is that I have no problem being seen in a more eldritch and oddball fashion. In fact, I welcome it. It is something to be embraced. With the right tone, gestures and expressions, one can completely unseat their neighbor with only the force of his/her will. That is a talent possessed by people I hold in high esteem.
And getting to my larger point, for this: My blog for the English Composition II course I am taking--to be mostly read by my fellow students and my professor, a Dr. Hamon--will not be traditional by any means. As my classmates have already discerned, I can demonstrate a talent for saccharinity along the lines of being sickening. And one reading this can only expect more of the same. I make no qualms about it. It is the way I am.
As far as other details about myself go: I am twenty four years of age. My favorite color is Rainbow. My favorite food is anything from Red Lobster. I am in my second quarter at South University. I am soon to be enrolled in the Occupational Therapy Assistant Program. I also aspire to become a Published Fantasy Novelist, and I have actually finished one of my novels: An Urban Fantasy titled "Rise of the Magician." My hobbies include making children cry, watching True Crime documentary television shows, swearing, studying a variety of spiritualities, pulling practical jokes on my unfortunate family members, falling asleep on couches, swearing, eating out, and repeating myself.
And that is all for now.
Hail Cthulu!
Chris
1. Being a little Strange can be quite endearing in the right situation, as it unveils personality in the "Looney Toon" in question.
And 2. Pride in one's self is not inherently sinful. It should come naturally to men and women that they hold at least some aspect of themselves in high esteem. After all, who else is going to do that for you?
But I digress. My point, based off of my distinct world views, is that I have no problem being seen in a more eldritch and oddball fashion. In fact, I welcome it. It is something to be embraced. With the right tone, gestures and expressions, one can completely unseat their neighbor with only the force of his/her will. That is a talent possessed by people I hold in high esteem.
And getting to my larger point, for this: My blog for the English Composition II course I am taking--to be mostly read by my fellow students and my professor, a Dr. Hamon--will not be traditional by any means. As my classmates have already discerned, I can demonstrate a talent for saccharinity along the lines of being sickening. And one reading this can only expect more of the same. I make no qualms about it. It is the way I am.
As far as other details about myself go: I am twenty four years of age. My favorite color is Rainbow. My favorite food is anything from Red Lobster. I am in my second quarter at South University. I am soon to be enrolled in the Occupational Therapy Assistant Program. I also aspire to become a Published Fantasy Novelist, and I have actually finished one of my novels: An Urban Fantasy titled "Rise of the Magician." My hobbies include making children cry, watching True Crime documentary television shows, swearing, studying a variety of spiritualities, pulling practical jokes on my unfortunate family members, falling asleep on couches, swearing, eating out, and repeating myself.
And that is all for now.
Hail Cthulu!
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)