Comment Archive

 This is an archive of all comments on my posts from 2017-2021. This blog was originally on Blogger, then moved to Wordpress, and now is on Blogger again. Because comments couldn't be exported with the posts, I have created this page so you can see all the comments in one place. New comments on posts cannot be posted.

 

 

The Rational Female — Comment Archive

The Rational Female — Comment Archive

511 comments across 121 posts · Oldest first · Archived from therationalfemale.co.uk

Posts in this archive (oldest first)

The Problem With The Digital Generation
01 January 2017
2 comments
cv writing service08 November 2017
I fully agree to your statements , we are advancing towards a brainless era where people are judged on numbers ie number of followers on Instagram , number of likes on their pictures, their Snap chat score etc etc. We don't even know what gives us pleasure anymore as we are too busy building our 'cool dude' self just to impress others not realizing that we are no longer what we once were.
Zarina Macha08 November 2017
It's very true and sad, society seems to be moving into a digital hyper-reality. There's this novel called 'The Circle' by Dave Eggers that greatly satires the social media conglomerates like Google, Facebook, Twitter etc. Everything is now about social media presence and people are able to present a fake image of themselves online which doesn't necessarily correlate with their real life.
High Heels Are Stupid
03 January 2017
2 comments
JesseHanson07 November 2017
good
Zarina Macha07 November 2017
Thanks!
To be or not to be a feminist?
10 January 2017
7 comments
Anonymous20 January 2017
I think the reason you don't identify as a feminist is because you've slightly misunderstood what feminism is. No, your right, the feminist movement taking place now is nothing like the 1st wave of feminism nor the 2nd wave. Just as the 2nd was nothing like the first. The first wave was about equality in the eyes of the law (the right to vote, the right to an education etc. It's all legislative). The second wave was about sexual equality and the sexual liberation of women (contraceptive rights & abortion - still legislative but also socially entrenched). Unlike the 1st and 2nd, which so heavily focussed on the white woman (generally middle class), the third wave (which we are currently in) is about understanding the varying levels of female oppression. Working class women, women of colour or women with disabilities etc are all facing multitudes of social issues on top of their patriarchal oppression. Women of colour are less likely to report their victimisation to the police whether they are the victim of a white or black man. Yes, this is a racial issue but it is also an issue for women and the more unified a social movement can be, the better. There is power in numbers and the fact that the third wave supports so many interlocking social movements can only serve to produce stronger, fairer social change that serves the interests of many. Abyway, that's why I'm a feminist xoxo
Zarina Macha22 January 2017
Fair enough, but can't one say that men also face social issues such as being less likely to have custody of their children, generally serving longer prison sentences, and simple things like being expected to be 'manly' men but also being in touch with their soft 'feminine' side? I would say the issue of masculinity is just as prominent as issues facing modern women, and the misandric side of feminism (although I am well aware that many feminists are not misandrists) doesn't seem to take into account men's rights and some even view men's rights activism as an abomination.
Anonymous24 January 2017
No doubt men face lots of social inequality but feminism supports that struggle too. Feminism fights the gender stereotyping that forces men AND women to adopt roles that oppress them. Changing the name of the movement doesn't change it's intent (gender equality/feminism are synonymous). Also, just to let you know that women who have children are actually more likely to be punished more harshly by the law whereas men, fathers or not, tend to have similar sentences. Why should women be defined by our ability to reproduce and men by their actions? Now that's an abomination.
Unknown23 July 2017
Ok, so I have a few questions. 1. Do Feminists care about children, and if so, what do they think about white children when they get older. Would they still care about their future and what happens to them? Examples being: Rape, torture, suicide, depression, and other stuff like that? 2. Why do feminists get to bully, and beat non feminists and get away with it like in those youtube videos? And why do they cover up the cameras in the videos? That just makes them look more suspicious when you show it to the officers. 3. Lets say that for some reason in the future, a president was elected who gave feminists everything they wanted. Do you think that they would be happy and stop being jerks or do you think they would still cause trouble? I'm sorry if all this is confusing and whatnot, but I am just a dumb teen trying to figure out the world before he steps into the deep end. Also, I have a few other questions, but I think the first three are a good enough start. Thanks for reading this.
Zarina Macha23 July 2017
1) I'm sure most feminists care about children, unless they don't really like children. I think they only wouldn't care about white children if they were racists. Feminism fought for women to get the biggest say in child custody, as it's believed that 'the woman should raise kids better.' I find this ironic as I thought feminism was about challenging traditional gender roles but as a movement it is a bit all over the place hence why you are confused. (And so am I to be honest, hence why I stopped identifying with it). I am sure the average feminist does not wish any of those things on anyone, as feminists are people and most people are not fundamentally cruel. Most people don't wish rape or pain on others. I would say this is to do with the person as an individual, not whether or not they were a feminist. 2) Again this is based on the individual person. People do stuff like that because they're horrible. They become so wrapped up in their ideology and their agenda that they beat up anyone who dares disagree with them. An extreme example is ISIS. It is important for us to remember that not all feminists are like that. Beating people up has nothing to do with feminism, it's about what the person themselves is like. The fundamental aims of feminism are about abolishing the patriarchy (which I believe no longer exists). It's (originally) a political and intellectual movement, not a violent one. 3) I hope that doesn't happen because if that did happen we would live in a horrible dystopia controlled by people driven by a regressive ideology! I think because feminism is so divided it's hard to say. The main thing is that when people want something, when they get it they usually are not satisfied and start raising the bar higher and higher. That is the problem with having high expectations. Let's say you give a person everything they want; then their desires will shift and they'll want something else. That's just how humans are. Happiness is internal, not external. Happy to give my opinion on anything else and feel free to check out my other feminism-related posts! I'm sure you're not dumb lol. It's good to ask questions; curiosity is a sign of intelligence.
The Lost Student08 June 2018
Really intriguing and interesting post! I recently wrote about feminism too, and I agree at points it can feel like the movement is becoming a trend and disregarding what it initially stood for. I think we just need to continue to remind ourselves that feminism is a movement for men and women alike in hope of a better future and society. Unfortunately, the term feminism can be warped and wrongly redefined by women who have not fully understood the concept and it can be exhausting continuing to identify as a feminist and constantly defending the movement. But we must continue, in hope that generations to come can have a happier life. (Ew that sounded really cliche) Loved the post. Feel free to check out mine too! https://theloststudentsociety.blogspot.com/
Zarina Macha10 June 2018
Thanks for your comment and I deffo will check out your blog. However I disagree; I think feminism has always been about women's rights on the grounds of being equal to men, and seeks to help women (femme) go against the male establishment (patriarchy), and so has created this us-against-them environment regarding men and women. This started to appear around the 60s and 70s, when feminism took a more radical turn, as opposed to early feminism which was more about establishing voting rights, property rights and education. In France, the feminist movement is more egalitarian than in Britain and America. (I've got some other blog posts all about this if you want to have a look - just click the 'feminism' tab on my blog). I prefer to describe myself as an egalitarian rather than a feminist because feminism doesn't really care about men's rights, it's only ever been about women.
Race is a social construct
18 January 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford19 May 2017
The concept of race was not invented by humans in order to divide each other and create social hierarchies. Yes, it has allowed some people to instigate prejudice over one ‘race’ of humans over another but that was a side effect, not the original source/intent. Humans' natural need for classification and labels comes from our intelligence, curiosity and ability to have knowledge. We want to communicate and we want to understand more about the world around us. Language gives us the ability to do this and the words are the results of the things we learn. Dividing things by race has negative connotations today because of the politicization of it all. Academically and scientifically, however, when it comes to anthropology, psychology and biology, we do see differences in race. Personally, I think we should be able to have a balance. Acknowledge that we are all of the human race but that within humanity, we are unique and diverse and certain areas did develop certain traits throughout evolution that are unique to those geographical areas and climates. We shouldn't have to deny truths that result (such as Africans handling hot weather better than cold weather and Europeans handling cold weather better than hot weather) but we also should be mature and not use those differences to treat each other less than human. I think racism will end, not by denying races exist, but by denying that race alone defines us. Certain races do tend to have certain tendencies and knowledge of these things can often be enlightening and helpful. We have all heard of "culture shock" when someone experiences a completely different world; This is especially true when races encounter each other for the first time (as opposed to ethnicities/sub-races). If we can embrace all races and stop looking at it as "us vs. them" (as a whole in society) then soon we will all become the same 1 race, as we continue to mix. As it is, the world has far more mixed children today than ever before.
Zarina Macha20 May 2017
What I mean by the notion of race being socially constructed is that there is no distinct gene that differs black people from white people, and that race as we know it is not a biological thing: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/
Layla Stepford22 May 2017
Human genetic diversity is as small as it is because it is relative to other evolutionary relatives, such as the chimpanzee (which we are 98% genetically similar to, whereas with other humans we are 99% similar). This is because we are all of the same overall human race and we have all evolved since we started in Africa. As different groups spread out to different areas, they started picking up different genetic mutations (or markers) which were part of the evolution of their race (or sub-race, however you'd like to term it). There are distinct genes that differ from black and white people, they are called "genetic markers" and that's how they can tell your race when you take a DNA test. "Analysis of genomes from around the world establishes that there is a biological basis for race, despite the official statements to the contrary of leading social science organizations. An illustration of the point is the fact that with mixed race populations, such as African Americans, geneticists can now track along an individual’s genome, and assign each segment to an African or European ancestor, an exercise that would be impossible if race did not have some basis in biological reality. Racism and discrimination are wrong as a matter of principle, not of science." (http://time.com/91081/what-science-says-about-race-and-genetics/)
Sociopaths vs Psychopaths
27 January 2017
6 comments
Brian25 March 2017
Very Fascinating stuff. Thank you for your comments on my posts as well :)
Zarina Macha25 March 2017
No problem man!
Sophie07 May 2017
this is super interesting! You explained this all amazingly as well!
Zarina Macha07 May 2017
Thank you!
Stacey Kowbel01 December 2020
Interesting post. Always an interesting topic for me as I have a psyc background.
zarinamacha01 December 2020
Glad you found it interesting!
Female Privilege
03 February 2017
5 comments
Will04 May 2017
I don't want to get involved in the Victem Olympics here, but the minor things that irritate me are when customers at work say "You look like a big, strong guy, could you lift this for me?" I want to say "and you look like you could make a lovely sandwich." More irritating are those Social Media posts inspired by the Marilyn Monroe quote: "Yes I'm bitchy, but if you can't handle the worst of me, you don't deserve the best of me." Can you imagine a man saying "if you can't handle my mood swings and verbal abuse, you don't deserve the best of me"? But far more serious, why is it ok to collectively brand us as Rapey and Toxic? Yes, there is "Rape Culture," in Sudan, or Saudi Arabia,but not in this part of the world.
Zarina Macha04 May 2017
Lol yeah rape culture is a silly concept in my opinion. Our culture does not glorify rape, and rape has been around since the beginning of humankind just like any other horrendous crime. It's a psychological issue, not a 'feminist' one.
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
Of course I agree with everything you said here. My husband is taller and stronger than me so sometimes he helps me reach or open things that I'm struggling with on my own. In the reverse, sometimes when something needs to be plugged into a tight place etc., I help him and plug the cord in because my hands and arms are smaller and better fit in the smaller space etc. I think it's so important not to ignore gender *differences* because they're part of what makes us who we are. Part of the alleged oppression from women/Feminists is simply the fact that they're not the *same* as men, rather than *equal*. And "same" and "equal" are two different things.
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Exactly. Men and women should be treated with equal respect, but of course we are not the same. I don't think we're 'extremely' different, but of course there are differences otherwise there would only be one gender.
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
Agreed. As far as "extremely" different, it really depends on what aspect you're talking about. Some things between males and females are extremely different but some things are only subtly different, it really just depends.
Sexual Objectification?
19 February 2017
12 comments
Anonymous03 May 2017
Thanks for the interesting and articulate post. One question I don't think you asked occurs to me. When a person, say, a woman, chooses to dress in a particular way in order to attract the approving attention of men, to what extent is her decision to do so influenced by the socialization she has experienced in a patriarchal society? And further, having made that decision, to what extent is her choice of clothing to achieve that end also influenced by patriarchal socialization? Some feminists, I think, would argue that patriarchal socialization is a big influence in both cases; and that thus, the choices are not as morally neutral as they first appear. (See, for example, The End of Patriarchy by Robert Jensen.) What's your view?
Zarina Macha03 May 2017
To be honest, I would say in modern Western countries such as Britain we no longer live in a patriarchy, and that women naturally dress well to make ourselves feel good, because we like looking good, because other women judge each other on appearance, and for the attention of males. However, I believe that because of sexual selection, women naturally look good in order to attract a mate and men are more inclined to go to a woman who looks good in order to have good looking children. This is just a natural part of evolution. But in modern day society I think women just dress well because we like to look good and it feels good (when appropriate) to have some male attention - lots of girls just like the attention and as long as they're comfortable I see nothing wrong with that. I'm glad you liked the post!
Anonymous04 May 2017
I think you are right about all of that. However, "unpacking" patriarchy theory is no simple task. Karen Straughan made what I think was an excellent start in one of her videos--I think I have it bookmarked, and will try to look it up. Jensen, in the book I mentioned in my original comment, makes a compelling (though not, to my mind, convincing) argument that virtually all present societies are patriarchal, which will not be refuted by appeals to evolution or the perceived present freedom that women enjoy. Carole Pateman, another feminist I am presently reading, argues that the very founding principles of western democracy are patriarchal (or rather, fraternal) in nature, as a necessary result of their historical development. It's a hard row to hoe.
Layla Stepford20 May 2017
Why is it sexist for gold-digger women to depend on men for financial security? How is that more sexist than the men with higher-than-normal testosterone rates who depend on women for sexual stimulation? It's great that women are afforded the versatility and luxury of having such choices in roles but men really do not. I don't see how a woman conforming to gender roles is "sexist" though? As you said, “Women look for a strong male who will provide them with security, and men look for an attractive female to have attractive children with. This is known as sexual selection.” "Society has long taught women to be ashamed of or to hide their sexual desires, and that sex should only be for marriage and is all about the woman pleasing the man." - Are you sure about this? It seems to me more like women taught other women that their bodies, especially in the act of sex, have a LOT of precious value which feminists today manipulate as being oppression when in reality, it was just self-respect, class and tact. Women complain about women being objectified only because of the way it makes them feel, usually about themselves. Women get uncomfortable around other women dressed "slutty" a heck of a lot more than men get uncomfortable (especially who are not married or related to the slutty-dressed women or the father of her children). It makes a lot of women insecure and/or competitive to see other women showing off their physical assets - this is something feminism consistently fails to address (or blames it on men). Additionally, it seems that many women like it when objectifying themselves works to get men’s attention, as they do it quite often with no regard for the other women around them and how they might feel about it all. Also, more women dislike sex or are neutral towards it than women who love sex the same way that men do (which are a very small minority compared to all women). Women waiting to have sex for marriage was more about conning young men into marriage, not oppressing women's sexual desires but oppressing men’s sexuality by forcing them to marry to get any sex. In reality, this only served to further benefit women when it came to sex as they had all of the power, and sex is much more valuable when it was harder to come by. Compare that to today, post-feminism, where women are pressured to satisfy men sexually - otherwise there is always some other woman who is willing to do it that he can leave you for. Today (thanks to the feminist “sexual revolution”), women feel pressured to compete more with other women, which has ultimately led to women objectifying themselves in ways they never had to before. Additionally, when women were not pressured to compete sexually, men were able to focus more on women’s personality and character. Instead of women leading with their physical assets, they would lead with their mind and personality. We see this a lot less with young women today, who often prefer to lead with their physical assets. Furthermore, men tend to appreciate virgins and being with women that no other men got to have "carnal knowledge" of. It makes them feel special and they hold it in very high regards, treating women in those positions much differently than women that many men have already "explored". (Kind of like when women feel special when their man can spend quite a bit of money on a romantic date/gesture for them, rather than the men who take them to McDonald’s or only out to do the things that he wants to do.) Women waited to have sex because it usually meant that they could get better men as a reward for waiting, which again has nothing to do with oppressing female sexuality. It was a woman’s choice. Most of the social stigma came from getting pregnant outside of marriage, because the negative affects this had on children was well known at the time (but unfortunately forgotten a lot in present time).
Layla Stepford20 May 2017
Lastly, sex used to be very limited to what pleased women in what many today refer to as “boring, regular, typical sex”. With feminism also came things like “blow jobs”, which ironically are the act of a woman sexually pleasing a man without getting any pleasure for herself (usually). So in reality, feminism and the sexual revolution made women submit to men sexually more so than they did before feminism. So if anything, women are more “oppressed” in that way today due to the social pressure of keeping up with all other sexually active women (which used to be limited to "professional" prostitutes). “Many feminists argue that this is indeed objectifying women, because it is reducing them to nothing more than sex objects being used to allow businesses to capitalize off a product.” - Yes and they ignore the fact that women choose to objectify themselves – sometimes for money and sometimes for the “fun and/or empowerment” of it, in their own words. “Films also play into the male-gaze idea” – These are usually raunchy comedies, horrors or action pieces though. Serious dramatic films do this a lot less. "It should also be mentioned that in Third World countries and tribes, women have their breasts hanging out because it's just a normal part of their culture." – Yes, because women in First World countries prefer to be clothed and societies in First World countries cater to women much more than Third World countries which often have very misogynist views and real rape cultures etc. Where women *can* have feminism, they choose clothes – even if they don’t choose feminism. “Women since the beginning of time have used their sex appeal towards straight men to their advantage. Likewise, men since the beginning of time have and do take advantage of less experienced women for the sake of sexual pleasure and dominance.” – I think your male “equivalent” is more of a worst case example. The trade is more that men take advantage of younger women for the sake of more birthing years to make sure he can “plant his seed” and keep his genes alive. In my opinion: I think American society has a hard time with sexual objectification and has spent too much time on both extremes of the scale. I think America would be much smarter to learn from European countries on this subject and deal with it on a much more mature level. The problem is feminism. Feminism claims to stand for women's choices yet they don't approve - and sometimes try to ban - women's choices when they involve anything perceived as submitting to men's wants/desires/fantasies/preferences/etc. This is why feminism doesn't support strippers, prostitutes or porn stars - even if the women sincerely love their jobs. The way I see it, sex shouldn't be as manipulated as it is in America - from either side. We shouldn't be sexualizing anything and everything that we possibly can nor should we become Puritan and claim all sex outside of a "holy" structure is "evil". I don't agree with feminists claiming that "all women should have sex a la carte like a [stereotypical] man". I also think that if women choose to have sex, they should be mature about it and respect others' opinions about it. If they want to have sex with a ton of men, then just have sex with the men who respect your decision to do that but don't try to make ALL men respect your decision - that's just crazy.
Zarina Macha20 May 2017
With regards to sex being only for marriage, I'm talking about this in the context of women being men's 'property' and men essentially owning women (even paying dowry to the woman's father in order to be with the woman - something that still goes on in some countries). Lots of religions, i.e. Christianity and Islam, stated that women were the property of men and that women should not sleep with a man she was not married to. It is true that women are often in competition with each other and feel 'threatened' by other more attractive women hence slut shaming other girls and calling girls sluts and whores because of their clothes. I wouldn't say that women waiting for sex was about conning men into marriage, although that's an interesting viewpoint; I think it was just more about how society used to view women's sexuality and nowadays it's good that women have more sexual freedom and have the chance to explore their sexuality. But yes it's true that some women still feel threatened by other women and even some men may be turned off by a woman that is very sexually free and promiscuous.
Layla Stepford21 May 2017
Thank you for clarifying for me. In the time period that you are referencing, sex was only for marriage but men had to prove worthy of getting the woman's hand in marriage. He was expected to be responsible for her and completely provide for her, so he had to prove that he had the financial means to take care of the woman and be impressive enough to earn his wife. Since the men had to pass all of these tests to prove themselves worthy, it was the trade-off that the women they did this for would be "pure", or why would he work so hard to prove himself worthy if she's already given herself to another man who didn't have to prove his worth the same way? Furthermore, this was an insurance against paternity fraud. That being said, I am aware that some countries have truly misogynistic cultures that go beyond this. I have a friend from India who has told me about many differences between her culture and America's. Well if you think women waiting for sex was more about women's sexuality then I'd like to ask you: Why would men have chosen to purposefully not be able to have sex with a woman unless they were married and committed to her, and thereby expected by society to always pay for her and make her happy? Why wouldn't the men have legalized prostitution if they were the ones in control and oppressing women sexually? I think women have always had sexual freedom and the chance to explore their sexuality but that before it used to be just with their husband whereas now women are encouraged to do that with multiple men. I don't see how that helps women. I'm not saying we should pressure all women into waiting until marriage but I do think they shouldn't trade 1 extreme for another, switching from just 1 sexual partner to as many as possible. Women today see their bodies more as something to be objectified because the sexual revolution encouraged them to be communist with their bodies. Instead of it being a rare value that has to be earned, they were encouraged to give it away like it was free candy. What has this done for society? Caused a lot of divorce, a lot of broken homes and single parents and a lot of underage girls oversexualizing themselves because it's all they see all of the women doing. Yes, when it comes to marriage and having a child with a woman, most men are turned off by a woman that is promiscuous because she is seen as untrustworthy and having a higher likelihood for paternity fraud.
Zarina Macha21 May 2017
I don't think it's the fact that men purposefully 'chose' to not be able to have sex with a woman they weren't married to, but more that they didn't want a girl who was promiscuous and to be sure of that it made more sense for her to stay a virgin until marriage. The people who made all the decisions around women's bodies were men; if a woman had sex outside of marriage she was considered a whore. Also men have always had girlfriends on the side. I would say nowadays women are just more comfortable with their sexual freedom and the choice to have as many or as little sexual partners as they want. It's true that there are a lot of broken homes and divorce but consider the fact that divorce used to be a taboo and people could have been in unhappy relationships and unable to get out of them. There are multiple reasons for the divorce rate going up; I doubt it'll be because women now have freedom of sexual expression. 'Communist with their bodies' is a bit of an extreme way to put it. Not every single woman is going to sleep around with as many guys as possible. Saying that being promiscuous makes someone untrustworthy isn't true; as long as you're faithful to the relationship you're currently in it doesn't really matter how many/little people you slept with beforehand. Also what about promiscuous men? Why should promiscuous women be seen as a bad thing but not promiscuous men? How about people just sleep with whoever they want and no one judges/cares about it? Also speaking from experience being a virgin can make it more likely for a guy to take advantage of you due to your inexperience. Marrying a guy doesn't necessarily equate to sexual freedom because he could pressure you into stuff you didn't want, or make the sex be all about pleasing him.
Layla Stepford22 May 2017
Is there something wrong with men having the preference of not wanting promiscuous women? How is that any different than the fact that the women then used men’s need and want for sex against them by making them meet certain standards in order to get it? Women preferred men who had more money and status, just as men preferred women who had less other sexual partners. Men put their bodies through a lot, made a lot of sacrifices and often pushed themselves to the limit just to earn enough money to be worthy of the women they wanted to be with in life. How is that less oppressive than a man not wanting a woman to have already shared herself with a bunch of other men? Men and women don’t have the same preferences. Why do you say that “the people who made all the decisions around women's bodies were men”? Men and women were usually in agreement about this trade off. The only time men were the only ones to make a decision about women’s bodies were when they rape women or when the Supreme Court voted in favor of abortion in Roe v. Wade, when all of the judges happened to be male. If a woman had sex outside of marriage she was considered a whore by men and women, but especially women who were more prone to gossip and socially shame her. Men rejected marrying them but it was usually other women who were actually “punishing” them for not falling in line with the rest of them. Also men have always had girlfriends on the side because there have always been women who don’t respect commitment, know the man has a wife and don’t care. Usually the mistress knows about the wife but the wife doesn’t know about the mistress. Does it really seem like women nowadays are “more” comfortable with their sexual “freedom” when they still complain about sexual objectification, regretting sex more – especially the casual kind, claiming rape more often than ever (without evidence to prove it) and are still largely against legalizing prostitution? Those things seem to say otherwise, to me, that women are actually less comfortable with sexuality than they used to be. I don’t think doing more sexual things (having more sexual pressure) is the same as being comfortable with it. Too many studies show women regretting their sexual encounters. [Also, a lot of women who want to, are having trouble getting married today, since men have far less incentive than ever to get married as well as much more open sexual temptation outside of marriage.] I have considered no-fault divorce and I think it was a really bad idea. This is all connected. Part of the reason there were unhappy marriages were because the men had to marry women young, before they were ready and to women they didn’t really want to be with forever, or they’d have to go many years without ever getting to have sex – and men do have a drive for sex that the clear majority of women simply do not have. It is harder for men to wait on sex than women, overall. So yes, some people were genuinely helped by no-fault divorce but then it damaged the longevity of marriage in the long-term. The Boomers all got divorced and have been on a remarry-divorce cycle ever since. They’re even calling it “gray divorce” now because the Boomers are still the main reason for high divorce rates. Enter Hollywood couples getting married and divorced like it was no big deal and we created a culture of divorce. The sexual revolution was one factor in rising divorce because women started giving out sex more and the amounts of mistresses and cheating increased. Also, men are less likely to cheat on wives who are virgins than wives who are promiscuous. That being said, the main reasons for divorce are usually that they are too young to get married as well or the man doesn’t make enough money, as well as some other factors.
Layla Stepford22 May 2017
'Communist with their bodies' had nothing to do with “every single woman” but rather the philosophy pushed during the sexual revolution, which was to “have sex a la carte”. Women who are promiscuous do have higher rates of paternity fraud and in that context, saying they are less trustworthy is true. Women have every right to share the same preference as men when it comes to promiscuity and can reject men who they think have slept with too many women. Is anyone stopping them from that? The reason why men get a pass at promiscuity is because women give them one. This is usually because the women understand that their desire for sex is not the same as men’s, and that their own preferences lie elsewhere. Women tend to prefer men who are tall, have money and have status within his community. Should they have to change their preferences? Why should we ask men to not have their own preferences of what they want from women if we don’t ask women to do the same? Men are different from women, shouldn’t they be allowed to have their own preferences? I have to say, my own experience disagrees with yours. I was a virgin all throughout high school and my conviction made it less likely for guys to take advantage of me because I was adamant about preserving my virginity. I purposefully never took an open drink from someone when with a group (to lessen chances of getting the rape drug), didn’t hang out with guys alone, didn’t do drugs, never led on guys or sexually “teasing” them (not dressing provocative) and slapped any guy who tried to touch me inappropriately. Of course there are some guys who try to take advantage of virgins but there are also a lot of guys who respect and stick up for virgins that they don’t even have plans of sleeping with. Either way, I think virginity should be a woman’s choice. If she wants to hold onto it as long as she can, she shouldn’t be pressured otherwise. If she doesn’t want to hold onto it, that’s fine too but I think she should at least be told that most guys do not prefer women who have slept with many guys when they are looking for long-term marriage partners, so she can make her choice with wisdom rather than ignorant of what consequences may result. To me, empowerment isn’t just about choice but also about knowledge and knowing as much as possible to make the most informed choices. How does having sex with random guys who aren’t even willing to commit to you equate to “sexual freedom”? If he’s not your husband, he is more likely to pressure you into stuff you don’t want because he doesn’t love you or cherish you, and especially if he’s not even your boyfriend either. Also, a husband is much more likely to take your feelings into consideration because he respects you and cares about you enough to tie his entire life legally to yours. Furthermore, if he does ask you to do sexual favors for him, he is not doing it to defile you the way a purely lustful partner does. In any healthy marriage, your husband is not going to pressure you into stuff you don’t want. Furthermore, on the flip side, men are more likely to pressure women they see as promiscuous into doing sexual favors for them and are more likely to be insulted if they don’t. Men give women they see as more virtuous more passes for not doing that kind of stuff. With promiscuous women, they expect it; With their wife, they don’t. And when husbands ask their wives if they will do sexual favors for them, that is a big sign that they are not cheating on their wives, as they are fulfilling their sexual fantasies with their wives rather than other random women.
Zarina Macha24 May 2017
It's true that not all men want to be with promiscuous women and people can have whatever preference they want. (But noted, when you're in a relationship the only person you'll be sleeping with - hopefully - will be your partner, so promiscuity in that sense becomes irrelevant.) Having sex with multiple partners isn't for everyone, but it can help to explore your sexuality and find out what you do/don't like. A husband won't necessarily care for you because you could marry an arsehole. Also some women may just find it difficult to find a boyfriend; sure it's a nice fantasy that you'll have a lovely boyfriend/husband and he'll treat you well, but sometimes that's not the case. A sexually active female may just find it easier to be with many men rather than hold out for one guy that may or may not treat her like shit or simply not appear.
Layla Stepford24 May 2017
My point is that women who are promiscuous have a higher chance of cheating and paternity fraud, so that's why it's relevant. Many men who took for granted that their girlfriends/wives weren't cheating just because they were in a committed relationship ended up the victims of paternity fraud. Some raised kids just to find out later they weren't really theirs, others were surprised that a 1 night stand or summer fling hid a pregnancy until the child was born, etc. Having sex with your husband or BF can help you explore your sexuality and find out what you do/don't like and women tend to regret it less than if they did it with a guy they didn't know very well. If someone is going to marry an asshole then what makes you think they wouldn't date assholes? You have to date an asshole before you marry them, unless you're talking about a whole other subject here. If he's willing to marry you and risk losing half of everything he has to show his ultimate commitment to you, the chances of him being an asshole with you sexually are very slim - especially when compared to some guy you don't know well who only looks at you as a "release". If having a boyfriend/husband that treats you well is a fantasy, then finding a random guy who's just using you for a release to treat you well is a miracle. A guy who is willing to actually commit to you as a BF/husband and be seen with you in public as your partner is going to treat you with a 1000x more respect than some guy that's just looking to satisfy his own needs as using you as the tool to accomplish that. If a sexually active female is being sexually intimate with many men rather than holding out for one guy [or at least having some standards including commitment], she's most likely already being treated like shit. If a female would like to be with a nice male who will respect her, it's most likely not going to happen if the nice male knows that she is letting so many different men enter her body. Most people see sleeping with so many partners as not respecting oneself or the result of a deeper problem. Men even feel this way about other men. Even though men tend to have more sexual partners on average than women, the mature ones often don't see sleeping with boatloads of women as good as sleeping with a few, quality women. The nice guys don't want to sleep with every single woman they can and they figure nice girls really don't want to sleep with every single guy they can with. Also, just like women don't like it when promiscuous women are around potential mates; Men also don't like when promiscuous men (relative to other men) are around potential mates either. There are many promiscuous people who don't care about cheating with someone who's in a committed relationship, there are even some promiscuous people who get a kick out of getting someone to cheat who's in a committed relationship. So there are a lot of factors for why men and women do not trust promiscuous men or women and why they "judge" them, or make note of them.
Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life?
24 February 2017
2 comments
Layla Stepford05 May 2017
*Excellent post!* "Obviously you can tell my stance on this. I think the only reason people are ‘pro-life’is because of religion. I can’t think of any other reason." - My thoughts exactly. "Pro-choice people are not anti-life, but pro-life people are anti-choice." - Well said. "Yes, because you shouldn't have to be punished or punish the poor child for your recklessness. (Plus if you're reckless enough to not use protection than how can you be fit enough to raise a child?) Better to take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening. If you don’t want to get pregnant, take precautions." - Thank you for saying this! "Raising a child is a huge job, and requires a lot of love and care and attention. A baby should be wanted, and shouldn't have to feel like a burden. It is the largest responsibility of any human being. Why should the state be allowed to force that on a person? How dare another person tries to tell a woman that she has to raise that child if she doesn’t want to? And what about the father?... Of course men should have a say in it" - Double thank you! "So yeah. I believe everyone has a right to decide what to do with their own body. No one should have to feel guilty for doing so, just like no one should have to feel guilty for having sex." - he fact of the matter is that abortion is a question of liberty, which is why it should be legal, objectively. Religion is supposed to be separate from the law. "Are you pro-choice or pro-life? Lemme know below!" - Pro-choice and agree with most of your opinions!
Zarina Macha05 May 2017
Glad you liked it!
Counter Culture vs SJWs
27 February 2017
5 comments
Will03 May 2017
Ha! Awesome! It seems, though, that people are getting tired of it. Too bad it's penduluming so far Right. It will just make the SJW'S feel vindicated in their nonsense. So glad that I live in a small city where people don't seem to go too far in either direction.
Zarina Macha04 May 2017
Lucky!
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I agree with some of this although I'm not even 0.00001% thankful for the Feminist movement nor should I be. They didn't give women the same rights as men and allow us to be treated as equals; that's a myth. Aside from that, the 60s-70s were definitely a liberal time and many would say it went too far left, which is what ushered in the conservative era of the 80s and Reagan as a backlash. I would just like us to find a more happy moderate medium.
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Yeah, the extremity of 'right vs left' is too much. Hopefully we will move more towards something in the middle though it may take some time.
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
Agreed!
Top 10 Favourite Musical Artists
04 March 2017
17 comments
Layla Stepford07 September 2017
I'm really glad you posted this because I've been very curious about your musical taste. Prince: Of course I agree with you here. He is definitely one of the most incredibly gifted musicians of the 20th and 21st century. Not only was he talented when it came to playing musical instruments, but he also was really good with writing music. He is objectively a phenomenal artist. Alicia Keys: I'm not a big fan of her music but I do think she has a really beautiful voice. I didn't know she had a classical and jazz background but it does make sense. I think her music is more talented than a lot of her peers. (I am not a big fan of modern music aka last 20 years.) Michael Jackson: I like a lot of his music but I wouldn't call him one of my favorite artists. Human Nature is one of my favorite songs by him as well. :) I was a dancer all throughout high school and I LOVE dance. I certainly appreciate his dancing abilities (used to love watching his music videos, especially Remember The Time & You Rock My World) and I agree that he does have a very distinctive voice. Beyoncé: I associate Beyonce with Feminism but not with female empowerment. I don't believe she walks the talk, if you know what I mean. I'm not a huge fan of her songs but I do appreciate her voice, especially in the song "Halo". I think I probably liked Destiny's Child better overall than Beyonce's solo career ever since. Terence Trent D’arby: Never heard of him; Don't think I'm familiar with any of his songs but I could be wrong. Stevie Wonder: I know Stevie Wonder is a legend but I'm sorry to say, I'm not too familiar with his music. Of course, I know some of it but I haven't really sat and fully checked out his work. Of all of the soul music I have listened to in my life, somehow this artist has eluded me a bit. Fishbone: I have definitely heard OF this band but I don't know if I have ever actually heard any songs by this band. I feel like I might have but I couldn't say that confidently. ABBA: Really? I find them so cringe-worthy! haha I hate "Dancing Queen". They're just way too corny for me - and I'm one of the few people that sometimes likes corny. This isn't just personal bias but I certainly wouldn't call ABBA "timeless". Even in the 80s they were hated and seen as being tasteless and a joke. Obviously younger generations are more into them again but they wouldn't classify as "timeless". Eminem: I definitely think Eminem is one of the most overrated "artists" of our time and certainly not the best rapper of modern times. I also think there are so many better lyricists out there. I'm not a major fan of rap, I do like some rap music, but I just can't get into Eminem. Sure, I see the appeal of some of his stuff but I don't think he appeals that much to people who are not fans of rap music. Aaliyah: Ok so I LOVED Aaliyah ever since I was a really little girl! I used to sing along to her in the car with my mom and she was the 1st celebrity that I ever cared enough about, to cry when I found out she died. She was so amazing. I have always thought that she is a gorgeous woman with a GORGEOUS voice and I appreciated her dancing and fashion styles. I also love how she tried to bridge gaps racially and not play into identity politics. I saw both of her movies as well (Romeo Must Die and Queen of the Damned). She was so inspiring and seemed like such a down to earth and humble person. *sigh* Of course, I love all of the songs you mentioned but I think my personal favorites are: One In A Million, 4 Page Letter, At Your Best (You Are Love) [her voice is so gorgeous in this one!], Journey to the Past (for the animated movie Anastasia), I Don't Wanna, I Care 4 U & Miss You. She was wonderful, one of my childhood favorites. <3 Honourable mentions: Never heard of these artists and/or their music: Caro Emerald, KT Tunstall, Lily Allen, N-Dubz, Tracy Chapman, Bebel Gilberto, Jessie J, The Last Poets.
Layla Stepford07 September 2017
Familiar with but not really a fan of: Rihanna, Kanye West, Lauryn Hill, Bruno Mars, Chic, Sean Paul. Respect their music/talents, might even like them, but not really a BIG fan of: Neyo, Jimi Hendrix, Bob Marley, Kool and The Gang, Earth Wind and Fire, Whitney Houston, Lady Gaga, Jefferson Airplane, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Simon and Garfunkel, Sade. Used to love (especially in my youth): Destiny’s Child, TLC, Taylor Swift. Does “Motown” just stand for all Motown artists? And Rick Astley? Haha Really?! Aside from the 1 hit “Never Gonna Give You Up” - which is one of the cheesiest songs ever, though admittedly catchy & has one of the most hilarious music videos ever! – I don’t know of any of his work. I’m honestly surprised you’d name him as one of your favorites. I'd have to think about who all of my favorite artists would be. My favorite genre is Rock & Roll but I have pretty varied taste overall in music. My #1 favorite band is easily The Afghan Whigs though.
Zarina Macha07 September 2017
Check out my post on Beyonce: http://www.thezarinamachablog.co.uk/2017/08/is-beyonce-overrated.html Abba are pretty corny, same with Rick Astley, but I like that cheesy 80s music. Most of his songs are similar and were probably produced in a day but I just think they're fun. Cheer-me-up kind of songs. Never gonna give you up is one of my FAVOURITE songs ever and I also like Together Forever by him. Lily Allen, N-Dubz, KT Tunstall and Jessie J are all well known in the UK. Perhaps not as famous in the US. Bebel Giberto is Brazilian, The Last Poets were a black conscious group from the 60s, Tracy Chapman was a protest folk/pop singer (like Joni Mitchell/Bob Dylan type), and Caro Emerald is Danish but again I think more known in the UK. I like her a lot, she blends soul, jazz, swing, funk and folk-pop together. Very fun. Yeah me saying 'Motown' is just the artists in general. My parents used to play Motown CDs all the time. A lot of my music taste is influenced by them. My dad's a musician and him and my mum love music a lot and we grew up listening to a lot of the artists I mentioned. From a musician's standpoint, Abba are quite sophisticated in terms of their arrangement in the same way the Beatles are. They're very influenced by blues harmonics. I don't know who 'The Afghan Whigs' are. When I think of rock n roll the Beatles instantly come to mind. I do like them too. My brother LOVES the Beatles, they're one of his favourites (he's also a musician). Terence Trent D'arby is often un-heard of by many now because after his first album he had a dispute with his record label and I think that wiped his fame away. You've probably heard of the song that goes 'sign your name across my heart I want you to be my baby.' That's by him.
Zarina Macha07 September 2017
Rock the boat by Aaliyah is one of my favourite songs of all time. It just soothes me and makes me feel good. Songs in the Key of Life is a brilliant album (Stevie Wonder). He's definitley worth checking out. Off the top of my head I recommend Superstition, Sign Sealed Delivered, For once in my life, As, Part time lover, and I wish as good songs to check out.
Layla Stepford10 September 2017
Will do. Thanks for the info about those artists I'm not familiar with. I have heard of another artists by the Giberto name that is Brazilian, I think they might be related. Cool, I figured but I was just making sure. I like Motown too. That was the one style of music that all 3 generations of my family (kids, parents and grandparents) could all agree on listening to at family events. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't say that it's wholly inaccurate and offensive/insulting to say that ABBA are anywhere near The Beatles when it comes to sophistication nor a musician's standpoint. Most musicians would completely disagree with that statement and/or laugh at the absurdity of ABBA being compared to The Beatles. The Beatles are one of the most influential, timeless and cross-cultural musicians of all time but especially over the last 70 years. They are definitely in the Top 5 whereas ABBA wouldn't even be in the Top 500 when it comes to talent or influence. The Beatles have cross-generational appeal, international appeal and cross-genre appeal. They have influenced big-name musicians in just about all styles of music from Jay Z to the Foo Fighters to Tom Petty to The Rolling Stones to The Bee Gees to Michael Jackson, were all influenced by The Beatles and their music. They introduced Eastern scales into Western music and paved the way for a lot of experimentation and branching out in music. And they were doing all of this when you couldn’t create these sound with just a touch of a button either, they had to figure out very creative [and tangible] ways to get their music to sound a certain way. They weren't the first to push with better lyrics but they did have a big influence on lyricists in music too. The Afghan Whigs are a rock band from the 90s but they've recently put out a new album with the promotional help of Usher. The rock and roll that I tend to like most is often blues-incorporated. It’s tough for me to pick favorite artists because I prefer to think of music in terms of albums or songs but I guess my favorites artists at the time would be: Afghan Whigs: What Jail Is Like, Crime Scene Pt. 1, My Enemy, Double Day, Blame etc., Honky's Ladder, Somethin' Hot, Uptown Again, 66, Cito Soleil, John The Baptist. Led Zeppelin: Trampled Under Foot, Houses of the Holy, Kashmir, In The Evening, All My Love Linda Ronstadt: It Doesn't Matter Anymore, How Do I Make You?, When Will I Be Loved?, The Dark End of the Street, Willin', It's So Easy, I Can't Let Go, Poor Poor Pitiful Me, Tumbling Dice, Just One Look, Back In The USA Rolling Stones: Get Off My Cloud, Mother’s Little Helper, Paint It Black, Under My Thumb, Ruby Tuesday, Jumpin’ Jack Flash, Gimme Shelter, Wild Horses, You Can’t Always Get What You Want Living Colour: Cult of Personality, Desperate People, Open Letter (To A Landlord), Memories Can’t Wait, History Lesson, Pride, Type The Police: Can’t Stand Losing You, Message In A Bottle, Don’t Stand So Close To Me, Spirits in the Material World, Wrapped Around Your Finger David Bowie: Space Oddity, Starman, Ziggy Stardust, Moonage Daydream, All The Young Dudes, Rebel Rebel, Golden Years, Under Pressure, Let’s Dance Morrisey/The Smiths: Suedehead, Everyday Is Like Sunday, Half A Person, There Is A Light That Never Goes Out, Hairdresser on Fire, How Soon Is Now?, Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want Tommy Bolin: Marching Powder, The Grind, Homeward Strut, Lotus, Dreamer, Teaser Smashing Pumpkins: Cherub Rock, Today, Disarm, 1979, Zero, Tonight Tonight, Eye Ride: Drive Blind, Taste, Vapour Trail, Leave Them All Behind, Twisterella, OX4 Fleetwood Mac: Dreams, Rhiannon, The Chain, Gypsy, Everywhere Stevie Nicks: Sorcerer, Rooms on Fire, Stand Back, Planets of the Universe Elton John: Tiny Dancer, Bennie and the Jets, Mona Lisas And Mad Hatters, Saturday Nights’s Alright (For Fighting), Rocket Man, Levon Joy Division: Ceremony, Dead Souls, Shadow Play, She’s Lost Control, Love will Tear Us Apart, Transmission, Isolation
Zarina Macha10 September 2017
You're probably thinking of Gilberto Gil - him and Bebel Gilberto aren't related, but I can see the confusion. All you said about the Beatles is correct, they are an extremely influential band. However, music is incredibly subjective. I've heard musicians argue and claim the Beatles are 'overrated.' There isn't really a right or wrong answer when it comes to the arts in most cases. I LOVE Cult of Personality by Living Colour and some of their stuff in general. They're a similar 'style' to Fishbone, only Fishbone are more ska/punk whereas Living Colour are funk-metal. I don't really listen to most of the others you named, though I respect David Bowie, The Police, Led Zeppelin, Elton John and the Stones. Fleetwood Mac are cool.
Layla Stepford15 September 2017
I don't think the name is Gilberto but I can't remember exactly what the name was. I think it was something less common than Gilberto (also why I can't remember it). Where's the confusion you're speaking of? Music is subjective because what you LIKE is subjective. TALENT on the other hand, is not subjective. That's why people can say things like "I don't personally LIKE Prince's music but I can't deny his talents." I've never heard of any musicians arguing that the Beatles are overrated - especially not any musicians with any kind of talent or knowledge of the history of music. If someone claims The Beatles are "overrated" then most likely: a) They're not familiar with The Beatles and their international influence; and/or not familiar with the fact that these guys were only 18 - 20 yrs old when they started; and/or the fact that they were putting out 1-2 albums a year, every year for 10 years PLUS a ton of singles in between each album - most of which were all hits. and/or b) They're not familiar with music history and The Beatles’ influence and innovation of technology in the music world and/or their abilities during the analog age of music. Aside from introducing Eastern scales and instruments into Western music; The Beatles invented musical instruments (such as the wah wah pedal) and innovated technology in the musical world (when they had to put multiple sounds on a little 4-track recorder - literally cutting the tape and then taping it back together in order to loop the sound etc. - compared to the unlimited tracks available in modern digital technology). and/or c) They’re racist, sexist, nationalist or otherwise bigoted against The Beatles and don’t want to give them their deserved and well-earned respect because they don’t like white people or men or British people etc. I don’t know what “right or wrong answer” has anything to do with what we’re talking about; There was no question posed? Unless you’re saying the question is: Who’s more talented, The Beatles or ABBA? If that’s the case then there IS a right answer – The Beatles – and a wrong answer – ABBA. Anyone who thinks that ABBA is more talented than The Beatles doesn’t know what they’re talking about or is bigoted against facts. I’d love for you to find me any respected musician that thinks ABBA is more talented than The Beatles. You’ve probably never really heard of Tommy Bolin or Ride but I think you’d really like Tommy Bolin. He’s very diverse in his music. Linda Ronstadt has a very talented singing voice and is more folk and blues based. The rest of the artists I mentioned are very rock-oriented so you probably wouldn’t like them if you’re not really a fan of rock music. And while I don’t think you’d like Joy Division (too dark and rock), I do think you’d really like the band they spawned after the lead singer committed suicide, called New Order. They do dance music and were a big part of starting the whole club-dance music scene.
Zarina Macha16 September 2017
Oh I meant the confusion regarding the name 'Gilberto' as in if you'd heard of Gilberto Gil you may have been thinking of him when I mentioned Bebel Gilberto. However as you said that wasn't the exact name so that wasn't the case. I was just saying there's no right or wrong answer because some people may say Abba are better, some may say the Beatles are better, and some may say neither are that great and name a different artist. It's just a matter of taste and opinion. I agree with everything you say about the Beatles and in terms of talent they are more talented than Abba due to how innovative they were. But some people may not agree purely because they have a different opinion or don't know much about the Beatles. Also some people have a thing against 'popular' artists; because the Beatles were a popular mainstream band that might cause some to not think of them as that great. Stephen King had this problem a lot; as a writer I think he's brilliant, but he's had a lot of criticism over his career due to being 'popular' and therefore seen as 'mediocre' because the view for some reason is that good artists can't be popular and popular artists can't be that good. I will give Tommy Bolin a listen :)
Layla Stepford19 September 2017
If I think of the name then I'll let you know. When it comes to personally LIKE, then the right answer is whatever you like, as that is what is being asked. However when it comes to the question of TALENT, the right answer is Beatles over ABBA. No one thinks ABBA is more talented than the Beatles except maybe some really little kids (like 5 years old) who don't know anything and have only ever heard ABBA and not The Beatles. And definitely no musicians of any genre or era think that ABBA is more talented than The Beatles either. As I said before, if they have some bias like they’re racist or sexist or against old music or influential music or whatever bigoted opinions they have, then of course that makes sense for them to think The Beatles are “overrated” as they’re bigots who don’t really know what they’re talking about. The Beatles were “mainstream” only because they were so talented. Anyone who thinks of them as a purely pop “mainstream” band is severely mistaken and needs to do their research because The Beatles were so good, they made non-mainstream into mainstream. Introducing Eastern scales into Western music was not mainstream. Doing an entire album pretending to be some new band (Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band) and creating completely new sounds and styles of music, all to make sure that they weren’t just being loved for their name-sake, is literally as opposite of mainstream as you can possibly get. So to discredit them just because they broke so many barriers is just ignorant. If someone tells you they think The Beatles were some crappy mainstream band, you should tell them to listen to what kind of music was out when The Beatles first came out, look at the music The Beatles made throughout their career, then look at the plethora of genres and creative music that was coming out AFTER The Beatles. They inspired people in ALL genres of music for a reason and they’re one of the only bands well-known all around the world for a reason too. It’s called “unprecedented talent” and it’s very non-indicative of “mainstream” music. Besides, if someone were actually against crappy “mainstream” music then they’d be more likely to love The Beatles and hate ABBA since ABBA was super generic and mainstream for their time. “Dancing Queen” didn’t break any barriers and the same kind of people who like Justin Bieber, like ABBA. Talk about “popular mainstream” [with little-no talent]. I don’t know anyone – especially involved in music or a great lover of music – that actually thinks of The Beatles as “not so great” just because they had so many #1s and got popular. That sounds like something someone would say who has either never heard The Beatles, only heard their very early stuff or doesn’t know anything about musical history, technology and progress over the last 60 years. No one thinks ABBA is a better artist than The Beatles who knows what they’re talking about. They might personally like ABBA better but no one who respects music thinks that ABBA IS actually a better band. Stephen King is just facing the same things a lot of bands face AFTER they go mainstream. Stephen King’s first books were very long and not as popular for that reason. As time went on, he learned to shorten things and get more concise with his writing, which was seen as “selling out”. This happens to bands when they start off artistic and creative but then do more “pop/mainstream” hits. (The Beatles were the opposite. They started off playing more generic stuff like everyone else at the time but quickly started to evolve as a band, pushing boundaries and emerging as what MANY musical experts say is one of, if not thee, most creative and talented artists in musical history. A list that ABBA is NEVER on, by the way.)
Layla Stepford19 September 2017
The notion of mainstream/popular being seen as “not good” isn’t really prevalent in today’s time though, especially not compared to Generation X which hit a stride in the 90s. In the 90s mainstream/popular stuff (like ABBA) was seen as the “worst of the worst”, and “sell out” and “corporate garbage” etc. The 90s were very much against that kind of stuff which is why grunge was able to get so big (and on the film side, a lot of independent films were made in the 90s). Nowadays however, with the likes of Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez and One Direction and Fifth Harmony etc. that kind of “mainstream/popular/bubble gum pop” stuff is back to being popular again and the youth today choose that stuff and love it, rather than rejecting it the way the youth in the 90s did (as well as the youth in the 50s-70s; pop got big again in the 80s but much more talented thanks to people like Prince, Bowie & Jackson. Then the 90s gave great grunge and alternative rock music but in the late 90s-early 00s the crappy pop stuff came back again - only with less talent and still hasn't gone away).
Layla Stepford20 September 2017
Also just to clarify a bit on The Beatles. I touched on this a bit but I didn't really articulate it the best: Part of what makes The Beatles so genius is the fact that they were able to marry the popular catchy and melodic music with the artistic and creative side. They made a bridge so that people from both sides of the aisle would think they were the greatest or one of the greatest. From young girls who liked their catchy music to the decidedly non-mainstream "artistic and creative" artists who appreciated their talent; The Beatles basically appealed to everyone. (As the saying goes, everyone can find at least 1 Beatles song that they like - because their music is SO diverse and talented and catchy.) They could write songs that appealed to intellectual types as well as more mainstream types. They had the artistry and creativity and ingenuity of people like Bob Dylan but they also had the popular appeal of people like Michael Jackson (who LOVED The Beatles too by the way and even collaborated on a few songs with Paul McCartney).
Zarina Macha20 September 2017
As I mentioned, I agree with all you say about the Beatles. I was simply saying that some people may just have a different opinion. Also, the Beatles had the four of them working together, whereas with Abba it was just the two guys and the women didn't really contribute to the songwriting, they just sang the songs. I personally can't stand most modern pop music, although I do have a few 'guilty pleasures.' Most real musicians (like the people I go to uni with) spurn the likes of One Direction and Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez. Naturally, people who want to go in that direction musically will admire them, but personally I don't see 'bubblegum artists' as anything other than disposable music that sells quick records then fizzles out after a few years. e.g. I liked Taylor Swift's Fearless album, but don't rate her newer stuff as to me it's mostly poppy garbage that is trying too hard to be 'cool'. A note about Stephen King: Carrie, his first novel, was actually very short compared to his other stuff (I read it in a day), and in terms of length he's been very up and down. Two of his longest books are The Stand and It, both which were published when he was well established in his field. One of his more recent books, 11/22/63, is pretty long too (though not quite a thousand words!) So I would disagree about his stuff being 'shorter' as time went on, I think he varies with length and actually a complaint people have of him is that he indulges too much in length (this is one of the reason I love Different Seasons, his novella collection; they're four short books that allow his talent to shine through).
Layla Stepford08 October 2017
I'm not sure what you mean by "different opinion"? If someone thinks that "The Beatles weren't more talented than ABBA" or that "The Beatles didn't have a bigger impact in the world of music than ABBA" then they are just factually incorrect; That's not an opinion thing, it's a fact. (I'm not saying ABBA had NO talent, just that it was nowhere near the level of The Beatles'.) Also, The Beatles mainly just had McCartney and Lennon doing the vast majority of songwriting as most of Harrison's and Starr's songs weren't up to the level of talent as Paul & John's - which just goes to show you how much more talent there was in The Beatles compared to ABBA. I agree with your opinion about modern pop music, but most people who feel that way about music consider ABBA to be in the same style of "bubblegum pop" as One Direction and Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez. That's why I was so shocked to see it on your list here but when I was younger I had some "guilty pleasure" interests of the "bubblegum pop" stuff too. I don't really listen to too much of that stuff anymore but part of that is also that I've been exposed to much more talented music in the last 6 years, so it's harder for me to listen to the same stuff I used to. I had been exposed to most of the good stuff of the 1990s and 1980s but I wasn't as exposed to the good stuff pre-1980s. That Fearless album of Taylor Swift was the last one I listened to/liked from her as well. :) About Stephen King, I was talking about in general and looking at his overall career arc. Stephen King gained much more popularity as he went on but he didn't start off quite as popular. He had some recognition and in the beginning of his career, he was often nominated for awards but for the first 7 years of his career (with 10 books) he never actually won (including The Stand which is one of his 1sts). Then he won his 1st award with Cujo, wrote a few more books that got nominated and then starting with IT 5 years later, he started to win some more awards which propelled him to "mainstream" popularity and not just popularity within his designated fan base. And as far as the length, you are right that it goes up and down and not in a straight pattern but I was talking more about how overall, his earlier stuff was more likely to be 600+ pages whereas the later stuff was more around 200 - 500. His longest works are more in the beginning of his career. If people complain his stuff is too long now it's probably because of the fact that younger people have shorter attention spans than older generations, on average.
Zarina Macha17 October 2017
I also forgot to mention that The Beatles also had the wonderful skills of George Martin producing and arranging a lot of their songs and he was sometimes known as 'the fifth Beatle.' A great producer can really make a difference. One also shouldn't knock the brilliant arrangement skills of Ben and Byork in Abba and merely write them off as 'bubblegum pop.' Their harmonic and melodic arrangements were great and they churned out a lot of hits that people are still loving today. People often forget how talented George Harrison was too - as a guitarist he was brilliant and added little bits here and there on tracks, and some of his own songs like 'while my guitar gently weeps' is a classic. Ringo wasn't the best drummer admittedly but he worked for their style.
Layla Stepford18 October 2017
Of course George Martin contributed to the group; But all 4 members of the band had successful solo careers - to one degree or another - after leaving the band showing how much talent they had. They all had talent and things to offer but Lennon and especially McCartney were on another level. Paul McCartney arranged a lot of his songs and is often undercredited/under-recognized for his talents. There are songs where he is playing multiple instruments himself, plus he wrote the melody and lyrics. George Martin had a good ear and helped, but it's not to say The Beatles wouldn't have been showcasing their talents without him - he just enhanced it. What hits of ABBA are there other than "Dancing Queen" that are "loved" today? That's the only song I've ever heard on the radio by them (in the USA). ABBA didn't create anything new though; they didn't open any doors and change the way music was approached and executed etc. There are many talented bands/musical artists but they're not all of equal talent. (As you talked about in your post with Beyonce.)
Zarina Macha18 October 2017
Hm I certainly wouldn't say Paul is 'underrated' or 'undercredited' at all; he's had the most number ones in the UK and is knighted. Other Abba hits include: Mamma Mia, Knowing me knowing you, The Winner takes it all, SOS, Voules-Vous, Lay all your love on me, Thank you for the music, Chiquitita, Fernando, Money money money (I've busked with that song many times and people often sing along), Gimme Gimme Gimme...there are many.
Layla Stepford19 October 2017
I'm sorry about that, totally my fault. I meant to say that in America, Paul is underrated and undercredited - though in England, he is not. In America people treated Lennon the way England treats McCartney. It's only recently that McCartney is starting to get more recognition for his exceptional contributions to The Beatles etc. I don't think those are all played on the radio in the USA. None of them sound familiar, I don't think they're "big hits" in the USA.
Should white people be allowed to say nigger?
07 March 2017
2 comments
Stranger in a Strange Land26 June 2017
If we truly have equally everyone has that right.
Zarina Macha30 June 2017
Absolutely! Or no one should use it at all!
My problem with patriotism
10 March 2017
12 comments
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I think part of the pride in one's country, at least from an American point of view, is all of the freedoms and privileges that come with being born in such a liberated place when there are so many places on Earth right now that still aren't as liberated. I think part of the "pride" comes from being so thankful to be born in that kind of country and having the opportunities that one has. Certainly that's a big part of why I'm "proud" of being American in the sense that I wouldn't want to have been born anywhere else and I am very "proud" that I got to be born in the USA as opposed to some of the other countries by ancestors came from. I mean, there's a reason why they left there and came here and I agree with their reasons. That being said, I definitely can agree with you that some people take it way too far and it becomes too much of a tribalism and anti-individual thing. As I say often, the key is balance. And it depends on what scale you're looking at. I don't think connection to the country you live in is "superficial", I think it's inevitable. When you live in a certain country, it often does tend to have it's own culture and specific influences and proclivities. Someone who has traveled can often tell when they meet people who are from the countries they traveled to because they are now familiar with that culture and their differences. I think we should balance recognizing and appreciating those differences not idolizing or ignoring them. I just so happen to love learning about psychology and biology and what makes us the same and what makes us different and why we make the choices we do and react the way we do etc. etc. So I tend to see these things and positive things that bring knowledge, not negative things that bring conflict. It's more like a tool that could be used for both but I tend to prefer using it for the positive - to learn and grow and understand.
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
I dunno if this is a stereotype from TV but it seems to me that Americans often feel really 'proud' to be American and act like it's the greatest country in the world. (It's something I've always found quite funny to be honest). But I get that it's because there could be way worse places to live in or be born in. Yeah, of course people are inevitably going to feel attached to their country. Whether I like it or not, I am going to identify in certain ways tied to being British. Even the way I write and speak and the language I use, the 'dry' humour, is a very British thing. Culturally I am very British because I was born and grew up here. I wouldn't say I'm 'proud' of it though, but then Brits have a stereotype of being negative and complaining a lot (especially about the weather) LOL. I think it's actually quite funny how Brits are seen as 'negative and moany' and Americans come across as all positive and proud and 'yes we can!'
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
I think that's an accurate stereotype and an overall feel of the majority of people in the USA. Many love our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as well as the Founding Fathers and what they stood for, represented and envisioned for this country. And yes, I admit that I think Americans take it a little further than most other nationalities; However I do think many people do have some form of positive attachment to their country - whether in the form of pride or not - and like to be where they're from. Have you ever traveled outside of England? (I'm sorry if I've asked you this before, I don't remember.)
Zarina Macha16 October 2017
I've been to Berlin, Tanzania, Madrid, parts of Italy, and Paris. (Paris is actually ugly like London, though the tourist places are nice. Berlin is fun and really clean, Tanzania is beautiful and Spain and Italy are great). I would love to go to India, Barbados (or any nice Caribbean Island), New York, LA, Las Vegas, Florida (all the exciting looking American states lol), Canada (though not in the Winter), Cuba, Brazil, Kenya, Egypt, Barcelona, Australia, Hawaii, Dubai (I hear it's more commercial and 'westernised' now so hopefully I won't have to walk around in a headscarf), just lots of places really. Only warm places though. I have no interest in Russia or the Middle East - Russia because it's really cold and fuck Putin (and general Russian politics), and the Middle East because only a crazy person would go there. LOL that probably sounds terrible but yeah.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Wow, that's really awesome that you've been fortunate enough to travel all of the different countries you have! Travelling can be such a powerful mind-opening experience. :D
Zarina Macha17 October 2017
Thank you lol, to me it doesn't really seem like that many but then I know people who have been to loads more places. Another stereotype but is it true americans don't travel much or usually just go to different states? Like bit random but there's this family guy episode where Peter goes 'travelling' but he just travels to different parts of the country. Like to me 'travelling' is going to a different country; I've been to lots of places in England but I wouldn't class that as 'travelling' in the same way.
Layla Stepford18 October 2017
Yes, aside from truck drivers, I think most people in the USA never go past something like 500 miles or about 805 kilometers past where they're born or something like that. I'm not sure about those numbers so I'll have to get back to you on that detail but conceptually, most Americans don't really travel and not that far. A minority travels to different states and it's mostly corporate business people that travel to other countries. I think travelling is a huge deal because it helps you be more open to diversity and how different systems work for different cultures etc. If you've ever been to America though, it is so big, it is almost the same size as Europe. The people are pretty spread out and there are TONS of different cultures in America aside from the overall American culture. I'm actually in the midst of writing a post about it. There is the overall American culture, the regional cultures (i.e. west coast, mid-west, etc.) and even some state cultures (i.e. California, Texas, etc.). So for Americans, travelling to different states is a good place to start because you still see totally different cultures and experience "culture shock" the 1st time.
Zarina Macha18 October 2017
I would love to go to America and it is true it is a huge country/continent. I guess as an outsider you group everyone 'together' in your head, like you don't think of northerners vs southerners or texans vs new yorkers or country folk vs city folk or east coast vs west coast. It's the same in the UK, like you have those up north who speak in different dialects and are culturally different to southerners. Likewise those living in smaller towns are different to those living in larger cities like London, Manchester, Birmingham etc. I know this is another stereotype and it really pisses british folk off; do americans really think all brits are either cockney or posh? I know you probably don't think that because of your intellect but some 'dumber' people seem to think that and that's how british folk tend to be portrayed on ALL US shows. As a brit I actually find it seriously annoying. This might make you laugh, I made this youtube vid a few years ago called 'Stupid stuff americans say': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvOEVX8MGJE&t=52s (I was 16 here; naturally my perceptions have shifted but yeah it's just a comedic vid).
Layla Stepford19 October 2017
Yes, I think when it comes to cultural and geographical factors, traveling from California to Texas is like going from Germany to Italy and traveling from San Francisco, CA to Los Angeles, CA is like travelling from Manchester, England to Liverpool, England. Just to clarify, when you say "either cockney or posh", what exactly do you mean? What does that all entail?
Layla Stepford19 October 2017
(I tried to watch the video but it was tough for me to hear what you were saying over the music. Sorry.)
Zarina Macha19 October 2017
I think it's more of a stereotype like in american TV shows or in internet memes. So cockney is like eastend type talk, saying things like 'nah mate, ah can't be fucked bruv' and then posh is like queen's english/still living in the victorian ages. Lol it's fine about the video
Layla Stepford20 October 2017
If you're talking about accents then yes, I think most Americans probably do see them as being "either cockney or posh".
The Problem with the Education System
19 March 2017
3 comments
Stranger in a Strange Land26 June 2017
Hello Zarina: Yes, education is to prepare you for the future by giving your the skills to survive in your culture. A thousand or two years back you learned hunting, fishing, gathering, making shelter, fire, clothes, and the traditions and stories that glue your people together. This has always been the way. Now we are being prepared to live in a globalist pie in the sky place that has never existed and will never exist. We are basically conditioned to be slaves or servants of a small group of folks with little intelligence and even less humanity. Back to your thoughts...very thoughtful and perspective. Kind regards, Mike ps: I willing up to your blog if I can. Something has been blocking me from joining other blog for several months now. I I am not listed in your followers, the problem remains.
Stranger in a Strange Land26 June 2017
ps: It worked.....
Zarina Macha26 June 2017
Thank you glad you liked it!
I'm done with feminism
25 March 2017
5 comments
Anonymous smartass14 April 2017
Completely agreed with the things you said, very valid points. Brilliant post.
Zarina Macha14 April 2017
Cheers man
Unknown30 April 2017
some good reasons
Zarina Macha30 April 2017
Thank you
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
Yeah!! 100% agreed!
15 Favourite Females in Film and TV
28 March 2017
2 comments
Anonymous21 June 2017
One of my faves is Sarah Connor as she appears in Terminator II. Now there's a badass woman who absolutely does not depend on men. There is no shortage of strong, independent women in movies that would not pass the Bechdel test.
Zarina Macha21 June 2017
Agreed! Haven't seen Terminator 2 but I'm sure she'd make the list!
All About Hair
01 April 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford05 June 2017
I have to say, thick hair can really be a pain. My hair doesn't really fit the 4 types because it's more of a Native American & Asian type that is really thick and mostly straight. And I mean really thick. I've even had my hair "thinned" quite a few times when I was younger because it was so heavy, it was hurting my neck and giving me headaches. I have a hard time finding hair clips that are strong enough to hold up my hair. :/ I also brush my hair in the shower after I condition it, so it's not so tangled when I get out, otherwise it can be a real pain to get through. I know you said you use coconut oil and it works for you but I was just wondering, have you ever tried jojoba oil? I use that when I straighten or curl my hair to protect it and it works pretty great. :)
Zarina Macha06 June 2017
Your hair is probably type 2, but type 2c so it's straight but very thick. I think type 1 is more thin whilst type 2 is thicker but not curly. Wow yeah I've straightened my hair before and it's felt really heavy and a pain, that must suck having that all the time! Nope I haven't use jojoba oil but thanks for the tip :)
Layla Stepford07 June 2017
Hmm, you're probably right on the type 2c thing. (Or 1d haha) The one good thing about thick hair, is that everyone's hair naturally thins as they get older, so it was the worst while I was growing up but better in my adult life. If you try out the jojoba oil sometime, I'd love to hear how it works for you. :)
Stay-at-home mums vs Superwomen?
01 May 2017
11 comments
Layla Stepford19 May 2017
I think that instead of forcing the man to take on more for a woman's choice to not stick to her own gender role is not the right answer and selfish of the woman to ask for. The reason we have gender roles is because it works out best for children to have 1 parent working and 1 parent at home with them. Just because women have convinced themselves that the workplace is a great ideal for them doesn't mean that men should be forced to follow suit and convince themselves that staying at home and taking care of children and the house is a great ideal for them. I think the better compromise, as has been suggested by many other women before me, is that women can still have it all but not at the same time: Career first and family later or family first and career later (depending on what kind of career) tends to work best for working women with families.
Zarina Macha20 May 2017
Or have some men stay at home whilst the woman works - nowadays there are 'house husbands' that look after the kids.
Layla Stepford21 May 2017
Perhaps you misunderstood but my comment was already in response to that. Having men stay at home whilst the woman works IS forcing a man to pay for a woman's selfish choice. If she wants to step out of her role, that is her prerogative but why should he have to follow suit just because it's what she wants? The problem with that is: 1. Most straight men do not want to be in the home. They have spent hundreds of thousands of years evolving as the hunter-gatherers. Unlike women, they have embraced their gender role and it has become a part of them that most of them are not trying to rebel against. As I said before, just because women have the means and/or desire to change their gender roles doesn't automatically mean that men want to switch their roles too. If we're not anti-male sexists but rather egalitarians/humanists, then shouldn't the man's opinion on what role he wants to play be just as equal as the woman's opinion on what role she wants to play? If the woman doesn't want to play her gender role, that is fine but he shouldn't be forced to switch with her. We don't like men to force their women into playing a role they don't want to play, so it should be the same concept in reverse. 2. Most straight women don't respect men who do this as women are more likely to divorce a stay-at-home husband than a bread-winner husband. When men take less hours at work, it increases their rate of divorce rather than decreasing it.
Zarina Macha21 May 2017
I guess nowadays gender roles have become more flexible and less fixed then they used to be. Some people would say that saying a woman's role is to 'stay with the kids' is too backward as we've evolved past being hunter gatherers and housewives. But yeah it's true that due to the way things have been it naturally makes more sense for men to go out and work whilst women stay with the children. Personally I would have no problem being married to a guy who earned less than me or wanted to stay with the children, but it depends on how liberal/traditional you are.
Layla Stepford22 May 2017
The technological revolution is really what allowed women to transition out of their gender roles. Technology made housework go from taking all day to just a few hours or even minutes. It freed up a lot of women's time in the home and technology in the workplace also afforded them more job opportunities because they were more in line with feminine skills; They relied much less on masculine strength etc. Even look at driving: More women started driving when cars became automatic as most women cannot or do not want to drive shift sticks. That wasn't men oppressing women and trying to not let them drive, technology just hadn't caught up to women yet - then it boomed specifically for them. I'd like to ask you, as a modern woman: What do you find to be liberating about working - especially if you are not your own boss or have a uniquely-skilled job like a surgeon etc.? It's a person telling you what to do, bossing you around, paying for your lifestyle and holding you to certain expectations. A [healthy] relationship is much less stressful and demanding of a woman. In a traditional [healthy] relationship that follows gender roles, the woman still has some expectations (cooking, cleaning, rearing kids) and her lifestyle is being paid for, but by her husband who actually loves her, rather than some boss who doesn't love her and might not even respect her. So why is it seen as being more empowering to be bossed around all day at a job rather than having more freedom in the day to do the things you want, as long you cook dinner and clean up a bit (which only takes a couple hours these days) while you’re at it? [Aside from nursing and teaching, the following jobs in America that are heavily dominated by women (70%+) are: Secretaries and administrative assistants, Cashiers, Waitresses, Maids and housekeeping cleaners, Child-care workers, Bookkeeping, accounting, and auditing clerks, Receptionists and Information clerks, etc.) So why is it seen as "more liberating" to cook and clean and organize for other people rather than your own family?] Why is it “backwards” for a woman to get to choose what she wants to do with her time and have to answer to no one except her loved ones? If a woman who wants to work is able to find a man who wants to stay home and they both are willing and respectful of each other’s decisions, I say good for them. I just don’t think it’s right for a woman to try and force a man to trade gender roles with her just because she wants to, if he doesn’t. That’s not really fair, you know?
Zarina Macha29 August 2017
Just realised I never responded to this. I think working allows financial independence, and if you're young and unmarried then this is just a necessity. Or if you're born to working class parents and want to earn money for yourself to feel independent and take the pressure of parents then it can be a positive thing. (I had several jobs in my teens). Or if you are married but your husband doesn't make enough for the whole family to be supported, then it makes sense for the woman to work too from an economic standpoint. My main view in terms of careers is that people should pursue what they enjoy and want to do in life. All my life I've been told that music and writing are 'unrealistic' and probably not going to get me anywhere, up until the last couple years really (people take you more seriously once you pass 18, even if you've had the same ambitions your whole life). For me, what I want to do in life is not something I see as work, it just is my life. I constantly write - as you've probably gathered I post on my blog almost everyday, I'm constantly writing, I write stories and poems, I write songs, I play music, I read a lot and watch movies and listen to music and go to gigs when I can, etc. None of this stuff is 'work' to me. So I think work, in general, isn't actually a liberating thing if you're only doing it 'to live' and as you said 'answering to a boss, being expected to be held to certain expectations.' Like certain jobs probably wouldn't allow you to have tattoos or brightly dyed hair. I think the reason working has been seen as 'progressive' is because feminism wants women to be 'the same' as men as opposed to treated with the same respect. You've probably seen articles about feminism making women 'become men.' As you showed me in another post, women have been able to pursue things prior to the suffragettes, and it is true that the technological revolution was lucky to come in around the same time as 2nd wave feminism. Really I think what is 'empowering' is what makes you happy. If staying at home and looking after a man and doing the housework makes you happy then that is fine. Some women wouldn't feel fulfilled doing that. I know I wouldn't; I hope to have a family someday but I will never feel fulfilled without writing and music. I think 'Office Space' 'Fight Club' and 'American Beauty' are good examples working for the sake of working without actually living or feeling passion for your life. I don't believe in 'work', I believe in the pursuit of happiness and inner peace, and that if you're going to aim for a career than it should be something that brings you joy. In my experience girls in school were taught to aim for careers and boys were practically disregarded, like 'don't focus on boys, aim for uni; you don't want to end up a stay at home mum.' I understand this is to try and make girls become financially independent and to think on their own two feet, but then I felt a lot of bias because 'certain careers' (STEM subjects, law) are better than 'others' (media, music, drama). There was even this whole programme called 'Moodys' at my secondary school when I was 15/16 that was about encouraging young women to pursue finance. I just think that if women want to do finance they will; why should we be 'pushed' into it? It made me feel really alienated as an aspiring creative artist.
Zarina Macha29 August 2017
*Moodys is this financial company with offices in London and New York, and it had this partnership with my secondary school and started this mentoring programme to encourage young women to pursue finance. Great if you want to; not so great if you don't. And as I mentioned, if a girl wants to pursue finance/STEM in the first place she will anyway.
Layla Stepford31 August 2017
Just a little tip: If things don’t work out for you as a musician, maybe you should look into becoming a promoter or something like that, this way you get to stay in the music business and do stuff you like that doesn’t really feel like “work”. :) Marriage and motherhood isn’t for everyone but you shouldn’t belittle them as “not fulfilling” careers just because they’re not fulfilling to YOU personally. You’ve mentioned before about how not everyone is lucky enough to find their soul mate etc. Well not everyone is lucky enough to get to find a career that brings them joy either. In fact, more people find romantic relationships that make them happy than find jobs/careers that make them happy. Most of us have to work to live and as the saying goes, “beggars can’t be choosers”, so many people get stuck with jobs that don’t really feel “fulfilling”. It’s very idealistic to hope that everyone could find a job that brings them joy – or that everyone will find their soul mate – but unfortunately, it’s not very realistic. My experiences in school were similar to yours: Focus on careers; Not on love. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of a woman named Susan Patton but she was a Princeton alumnus (Ivy League university) and now a mother, that told female students in Princeton that IF they want to become mothers/wives someday, they shouldn’t disregard men at this age. She told them, hey, you’re at one of the top universities in the country and most of your male peers are going to become great catches some day; So don’t ignore them or treat them like crap because they’ll be likely to remember that later in life if you try to get their time/attention later. She also reminded them that nature put a biological clock on giving birth, that they don’t have until forever to try and have a kid so they shouldn’t put it off too much or too long or they could miss out on that dream. The Feminists had a full-blown temper tantrum and fit over it. They tried to accuse her of telling women to “abandon their careers to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”; Even though she clearly never said that. They tried very hard to demean her as a “misogynist”, “cavewoman”, etc. They attacked her viciously simply because she reminded women that there was an alternative choice to “careerist”. She spoke about how, when she asked the Princeton girls to raise their hands if they wanted to be mothers at some point, they actually all turned and looked at each other for approval, before raising their hands. She talked about how Feminists have been so anti-mother and anti-housewife for so long, that girls who really do want this lifestyle are often pressured into staying silent about it and pursuing careers instead – forced to give up their real dreams for the sake of “not regressing the women’s movement” (because Feminism has never been about choice, it’s always been about turning women into “men”, so to speak). She was trying to help these women so they don’t turn out like so many others, who chose career over motherhood – but wanted motherhood – and then were left with such choices as in vitro fertilization or adoption (overall single motherhood) and just plain giving up on that dream. It was the Feminists who attacked her, just for trying to help women. Again, showing that Feminism has never been about “freedom of choice” etc.
Layla Stepford31 August 2017
You make a good point about some careers being more “respected” or having more positive connotations put on them. If it was really just about women having jobs in general, it wouldn’t matter which careers they chose. You may have noticed that the careers they put in more positive lights are the ones that are more traditionally male-dominated as opposed to female-dominated. Again, going back to Feminism never being about choice but conformity and change instead. When women were pushed into the workplace, most of them chose “traditionally female” jobs, which caused the Feminist backlash to pressure girls into the more “traditionally male” jobs instead. As one famous Feminist icon said, “Women shouldn’t be given the choice because they’ll choose wrong.” She was of course talking about that they’d choose “wife/mother” over “careerist” but that quote can pretty much be applied to all Feminist doctrine. Even if women choose “careerist”, to the Feminists, they choose the “wrong” career and therefore have to be manipulated or pressured into the choices that Feminism wants women to pick, not the choices each individual woman wants to pick. As you said, “if a girl wants to pursue finance/STEM in the first place she will anyway”. Same can be said for careers in general: “if a girl wants to pursue the workplace (as opposed to being a wife/mother) in the first place, she will go for it anyway”. (And as you’ve seen, the women who wanted to work even in 1890, did get to work.) As I’ve said many times, we’ve never needed Feminism and all it does is hurt women; not help them.
Zarina Macha01 September 2017
Sounds like those feminists attacking that Princeton alumnus were being dumb bitches. And yeah I've heard that phrase about 'choosing wrong.' It's like trying to turn women into men. And saying we have a clock on our fertility is just common sense because we do. I know I keep saying this too but this is why I think the novel 'I don't know how she does it' is so important, because it literally addresses these problems of trying to balance career and motherhood and the working woman 'becoming a man.' Also addresses some other stuff we've talked about, like the protagonist kept her own name and makes more money than her partner and yes, her partner does feel slightly 'emasculated.' It's a great book and you really sympathise with the protagonist and want to laugh and cry at the same time.
Layla Stepford07 September 2017
Come to think of it, I think I have heard of that book before as well. I'll try and check it out sometime.
All white people look the same
04 May 2017
1 comment
Layla Stepford07 May 2017
Yes, it tends to be that people have an easier time telling the difference within their own race and/or races that they grew up around. Sort of like when you can't tell twins apart, until you get to know them better and they suddenly start looking different to you, even seemingly becoming obviously different. It shows you how relative "similarities and differences" really are.
Kill Your Friends (aka Americans and Guns)
14 May 2017
1 comment
Unknown14 May 2017
All the gun owners full of crap as your country was stolen without a single shot fired by anyone of you.Since 1913 we pay a central banker for the privilege creating our very own money if that not stupid enough. It continues till this very day and this Christmas break will celebrate 104 anniversary stealing trillion from our economy.(/11 absurd as an airplane striking either the twin towers unable demolish either of them by laws physics alone and science as well. Jet fuel incapable damaging the steel as temperature jet fuel known as kerosene google the temperature it burns at then check see what temperature steel melts at 10000 c difference rendering entire fairy tale all media has lied and that by the way could only occur a conspiracy.
Is rape a feminist issue?
17 May 2017
1 comment
Layla Stepford19 May 2017
The only reason feminists complain about "victim blaming" is because it occurs most when someone is accusing "date rape" - which often turns out to just be regretful yet consensual sex (or sometimes, even just an empty allegation).
What's wrong with my generation?
22 May 2017
1 comment
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I think there are many reasons for this but the main 2 being: 1. Over-dependence on technology. 2. Too many single-parent/broken homes where parents depend on technology to help "raise/babysit" their children.
Politics is a lame game
25 May 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford27 May 2017
"I do agree that it is important to vote due to the fact that so many in the past have given their lives for the ballot, from the Suffragettes to Martin Luther King." - MLK didn't fight for the right to vote but even more than Suffragettes, the ultimate act of giving one's life for democracy would be the American Revolution. America did start from colonists who rebelled against the British: "No taxation without representation" was a common slogan at the time. [Just mentioning it for history sake :)] Because of the first past the post system, it is hard to get politicians that generally care about people as they tend to care more about the power. It sucks. I haven't lost hope yet that people's votes can change things though. This was the situation this past year with American politics. The American people had enough of the 2 party system and initially, the top candidates from each side already had a father/brother/husband that had been in office before them. It felt like America was giving way to monarchy for a lot of citizens. Then Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders entered the race and both were out of line with the 2 major parties. Yet instead of them voting for the 2 parties, or as a 3rd party, they became the 2 parties to transform them from the inside. A lot of Americans saw this as the right answer [voting for Trump or Bernie as a 3rd party candidate on a 2 party ticket]. Since 1 of those 2 guys actually did win, I really hope to see things improve over the next 4 years. If they don't, then I'll be pretty convinced that it really doesn't matter who's in power.
Zarina Macha27 May 2017
Did you vote for Trump or Sanders? I liked Sanders a lot, didn't like Clinton, and although I'm not Trump's biggest fan (us Brits don't like him) I can't say I hate him either. I'm sort of neutral on him to be honest, like I think he has pros and cons. Actually MLK did campaign for the african-american right to vote - 'give us the ballot' is one of his famous speeches.
Layla Stepford28 May 2017
I voted for Trump because I lean more towards self-responsibility and accountability than group-responsibility. I grew up around a lot of people around me who didn't really want to succeed as much as I did, which often ended up in me having to pull their weight on top of my own, which is why I'm not exactly pro-Socialism [though I'm not fully anti-Socialism either]. I agreed with Sanders almost as much as I did with Trump, but Sanders wanted America to have open borders and for all immigrants [especially illegal ones] to automatically become citizens and immediately be eligible for welfare and healthcare and other financial aid. He could never win in America until he adjusts some positions because he'd completely bankrupt our country. A lot of Americans like Bernie but don't see him as economically viable [rightfully so]. Even if we taxed the richest people more [which I agree with doing], his costs would raise the taxes too high and many of them would end up leaving and causing our economy to collapse or go into a great depression. I hated President Bush Jr. and thought his brother, Jeb [leading Republican candidate before Trump jumped in], was just an *awful* choice. Even worse, I think Hillary Clinton is much, much more awful. I think she is one of the most corrupt politicians America has ever had, and one of the ugliest human beings - inside, as a person - to be portrayed as any kind of positive icon. Her sexism and bigotry makes me sick and I really did not want to see her as the 1st female President of the US. I knew Jeb couldn't beat Hillary and I mostly voted for Trump because he was the only one that I believed could beat Hillary Clinton and he had some moderate, 3rd party background that I was hoping would show more after he won. Like you, I think Trump has pros and cons but I'm hoping the pros will outweigh the cons after his 4 years are up. Okay, sorry about the misunderstanding on MLK. The thing about America is we have these dreadfully backwards people in the South that are disturbingly regressive and sometimes I forget about them. I knew that Blacks already had the right to vote, so I meant that MLK wasn't fighting for a federal right to vote. On the speech you brought up, he was fighting some people in the South who were trying to find loopholes against their right to vote.
Only Skin Deep
27 May 2017
9 comments
Layla Stepford01 June 2017
I like the point you made about comparing plastic surgery to tattoos. I don't think dying one's hair or getting piercings are on the same level since they are temporary whereas surgery and tattoos tend to be permanent. I agree with most of what you said except this line: "The only difference between black and white people is that black people have more melanin in their skin." Scientifically and medically, that's not true, as they have also have different skull shapes, different blood types - especially related to sickle cell - as well as different DNA patterns. (https://anthropology.si.edu/writteninbone/comic/activity/pdf/Identify_ancestry.pdf) (https://obi.org/blood-donation/scientific-facts/) (http://www.sicklecellsociety.org/resources/why-is-blood-from-afro-caribbean-donors-special/) (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/) I also don't agree that "If anything she's the opposite of racist" because "she loves dark skin so much she wants it on herself". Being racist has nothing to do with loving or not loving dark skin - or light skin. That's just a personal preference. So I do agree with your overall point that she's not racist for wanting darker skin though.
Zarina Macha02 June 2017
Ah I can see how having different DNA patterns would make sense, considering Negroids and Caucasoids originate from different parts of the world. Cheers for that.
Layla Stepford03 June 2017
What do you mean "Negroids and Caucasoids originate from different parts of the world"?
Zarina Macha03 June 2017
As in people of african descent (negroids) and people of european descent (caucasiods) originate from different parts of the world. Negroids, Caucasoids and Mongoloids are just the terms given in terms of classification.
Layla Stepford04 June 2017
They don't originate from different parts of the world though, they all originated from Africa and just left at different times as well as traveled to different regions. What makes them "Negroid", "Caucasoid" or "Mongoloid" has to do with where they spent the most time developing genetically, not where they originated from. People in Europe and Asia etc. have acquired certain specific mutations to adapt to the different environments that they settled in, as well as lost some specific genes that Africans have. It's all about survival. Africans have DNA that is best suited for surviving the environment in Africa; Asians have DNA that is best suited for surviving the environment in Asia. This isn't just limited to skin color but diet, blood PH, eyesight, hearing, strength, speed, agility, thinking patterns, height, weight, built, etc. For example, Africans tend to be the fastest in the world because they live around a lot of fast animal predators. Asians tend to have a specific stomach that digests rice in a different way than other races since they had so much of it around. Whites tend to have more facial and body hair since they tended to live in colder climates. 70,000 years ago though, there were no "Caucasoids" or "Mongoloids" as we were all "Negroids". (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/human-journey/)
Zarina Macha04 June 2017
Yeah I think I worded it wrong, I meant they have different genetic information from different parts of the world due to travelling to other countries and the climates there etc - what you said basically XD
Layla Stepford05 June 2017
No worries! I'm glad we were able to clarify. Some topics, especially DNA and race, have tricky wordings because of nuances and colloquial speech etc. When in doubt, I tend to ask for clarification to try and eliminate misunderstandings. :) I'm pretty mixed ethnically, so I've always been really interested in the similarities and differences between cultures, ethnicities and races etc. I know comparing those things has a lot of negative connotations today, but I think that's a shame. I think when one looks at that stuff in an observational and educational way, it can be pretty fascinating and enlightening - like what you did with your "All About Hair" post. :)
Zarina Macha05 June 2017
Cheers! I'm so glad you like reading my posts. What are you mixed with? I'm Asian/African; my dad was born and raised in Tanzania and my mum is of Indian descent and born and raised in Britain. I consider myself culturally British; I wouldn't say I 'identify' with my ethnic background, it's more of a descriptive part of me like being a female or being short (I'm barely 5"3).
Layla Stepford05 June 2017
As you said, we have many similar viewpoints and overall, I like your attitude and approach. You have a nice balance and it's not too often one finds open-minded people on the internet. So thank you for your posts. :) Thank you for sharing your mixture with me, I appreciate it. I am mixed with Caucasian, Asian/Pacific Islander & Native American; I was born and raised in America. Ethnically, I think I am pretty American (more so than many in my family). My family is all separated and/or broken apart so I think it helps to highlight some of the ethnic/racial differences between them for me. I've always felt pretty mixed my whole life. (I know what you mean about being short! I'm 5'1" and have often had that word used to describe me.)
Newspaper Politics
06 June 2017
2 comments
B. Dixon24 September 2017
I guess I never thought of newspapers this way, I mean I've mostly used the Guardian as my pslam almost, interesting to read a new perspective. Never thought newspapers could be biased.
Zarina Macha24 September 2017
Newspapers definitely have a political bias, it's part of what drives the perspectives behind their stories or articles. Lately I've noticed the Independent become more 'left leaning' and being pro 'gender neutral babies' and supporting identity politics.
Is Cheating Always Wrong?
11 June 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford12 June 2017
I agree with pretty much everything you said here. It really is all relative, especially with the people involved and the best thing one can do for themselves is to know what they are getting into before getting in too deep. I especially agree with your part about it not being sexism. Though it does tend to affect men more so than women, as men (in general) are more seduced by sex and physical stimuli than women. And it's also more common for men to have a higher sexual libido than women (though not that common overall) so there are more examples of guys like JFK who had a condition which required him to get more sex than the average man. The only thing I do not agree with is that "a perfectly happy" relationship "can lead to cheating". If being "perfectly happy" is all it takes for someone to cheat then you should definitely leave that person as they are self-destructive and potentially dangerous. As far as committed relationships, men tend to cheat because their partner is emasculating them and/or not giving them any sex; women tend to cheat because their partner feels emotionally distant from them and/or not spending any time/talking with them. For both men and women, however, the more temptation the more likely the chances of cheating. This is why, when both partners work outside the home with members of the opposite sex, the likelihood that one or both of them will cheat increases dramatically. This is especially true after the couple has had a fight, as they tend to be more vulnerable.
Zarina Macha30 June 2017
It is true and yeah I meant like in the film Fatal Attraction the man doesn't seem unhappy in his relationship at all and his wife is lovely, but still cheats. I wouldn't say a perfectly happy relationship can lead to cheating, just that sometimes if someone has been with someone for a long time and may love them but might still have a slip-up (which is bad but can potentially be forgiven depending on the couple).
Layla Stepford30 June 2017
I'm not familiar with the film Fatal Attraction. I'm not saying that a happy relationship can never lead to cheating, I'm just saying that I think realistically it never should as it shows a lack of respect and commitment. You're right about it being potentially forgiven depending on the couple though, of course. I just personally think that's so awful, haha. I have an easier time understanding the addict, JFK-type thing since at least there's a scientific reason for that and it's not entirely his fault. The "slip-up" is 100% purposefully disrespectful to me. On the flip side though, it's reciprocated. I hold myself to the same standards.
Prison vs School: How different are they?
13 June 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford28 June 2017
Interesting points you raise. I think you could add the military to this list as well. They're all heavily (and somewhat similarly) structured.
Zarina Macha30 June 2017
Yeah I just got that LOL. Have you seen Full Metal Jacket? Classic example.
Layla Stepford30 June 2017
Not fully yet. Heard it's pretty brutal. I've seen a ton of military/war films in general though.
If Gods Existed...
17 June 2017
2 comments
Unknown20 June 2017
Well said. Gods all all man made constructs.
Zarina Macha20 June 2017
Thank you, indeed they are!
Top 15 Favourite Books
19 June 2017
8 comments
Layla Stepford28 June 2017
This is very cool! I have to say, I am not familiar with most of the books on your list but some of them sound really interesting! I read a few fantasy books in my youth but as I've been getting older, I've been trying to read up on the classics. Some of my favorite fiction books are: Lord of the Flies - William Holding Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury To Kill a Mockingbird - Harper Lee 1984 - George Orwell Brave New World - Aldous Huxley Martian Chronicles - Ray Bradbury Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? - Philip K. Dick The Stranger - Albert Camus
Zarina Macha28 June 2017
I've read Lord of the Flies, To Kill a Mockingbird, 1984 and Brave New World. Loved Mockingbird and 1984; enjoyed Lord of the Flies, thought Brave New World was a bit confusing and struggled to finish it. Actually nearly put 1984 on my list but I wanted to do more 'pop' books rather than classics. The only real 'classics' on my list are Lolita and The Bell Jar, both great reads.
Layla Stepford29 June 2017
The Circle, Only Ever Yours, Gone Girl, The Girl on the train, Truly Madly Guilty, The Last Anniversary are all of the ones on your list that stood out the most to me. Have you ever read "Looking for Mr. Goodbar?" by Judith Rossner? It seems like a book that you might have interest in. They made it into a great film with Diane Keaton but it's really hard to get. It's similar to some of the books on your list here. Brave New World is very much the other side of the coin to 1984. I personally think it's good to read them both as long as you are reading 1 of them. 1984 is about society being controlled through fear and oppression while Brave New World is about society being controlled through desire and pleasure/entertainment. I grew up around a lot of irresponsible people like that in Brave New World yet personally, I had much more values and standards of structure and efficiency for myself than my parents and many family members and even peers around me. So personally, I really liked how the book showed the negative side to society being too into self-indulgence etc. The subject matter of Lolita is a little too uncomfortable for me personally so I don't know that I'll ever read that (nor see the film). Same with the subject matter of The Bell Jar, I prefer to stay away from reading psychological stuff like that as I personally find it too depressing. Fahrenheit 451 is probably my favorite book of all time. If you love reading, I would recommend it. Martian Chronicles & Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? are great if you're into science-fiction. (I'm a HUGE fan of Twilight Zone and these books are somewhat in that fashion, especially the former.) I highly recommend The Stranger by Albert Camus for you. It's a gripping read that I think you will enjoy. Really interesting and unique.
Zarina Macha30 June 2017
Thanks for the recommendations! I've heard of Farenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore but that's nothing to do with the book is it XD Yeah some people can find Lolita disturbing but it is done very well and poetically. I like books that are 'shocking' as is apparent. Haven't read Looking for Mr Goodbar. I'm not huge on sci-fi, prefer psychological dramas/thrillers/dark comedy/fantasy. It's true that the premises explored in Brave New World are interesting (soma!) Huxley was Orwell's mentor I believe when Orwell was at Cambridge. Might explain why the books go hand-in-hand.
Layla Stepford30 June 2017
No problem, I hope you enjoy them if you happen to check them out. :) I'm sure that Michael Moore got the name from that book, though I saw that film so long ago (and only once) that I don't much remember what the tie-in may (or may not) have been. The book has a very small sci-fi element but it's mostly a dystopian novel like Brave New World and 1984 but less sci-fi than those two, I think you'll like it. I love Plot Twist/Endings and I like movies that are psychological; However because of my history, I just get really weird about reading things that have adult-child abuse. It's just a weird personal thing I have. haha I might be able to read The Bell Jar, but I'd have to be in a specific mood to handle that kind of "mental illness" material. I think reading it is more personal than watching it, if that makes sense? Looking for Mr Goodbar is definitely a shocking drama. I wouldn't recommend the sci-fi ones for you then but I do still recommend The Stranger as it is more of a psychological thriller. Also, Orwell and Huxley didn't get along because they both thought each other were wrong and they were right. In reality they were both right and wrong together! It's good that they both did their own pieces, which is why I recommend reading them together. :)
Zarina Macha08 August 2017
Hey, I read Farenheit 451. It's a little thing so I read it in a couple days. The language was beautiful, so poetic and I loved his use of imagery. At times I got a bit confused as I couldn't tell what was happening for real and in Montag's imagination. I sympathised with him a lot, deffo reminded me of 1984's Winston Smith. I wouldn't put it as one of my favourites, but I definitely enjoyed it.
Layla Stepford13 August 2017
I'm glad you read it and liked the style. I think it's a book anyone who loves reading should take the time to read. :) By the way, I'm currently in the process of moving so it will take me longer to read and respond to your posts and comments etc. over the next couple weeks.
Zarina Macha13 August 2017
No problem :)
Not a 'real' feminist?
25 June 2017
52 comments
Layla Stepford28 June 2017
Feminism (in America) is a lobbyist group that acts in many ways, like a religion. They tell you what to believe, what the rules are, what they should be and how to get that done - including through "radical means". Just like religion, Feminism is a doctrine. Most of the "problems" Feminism raises are distorted or manipulated. I don't see the Suffragettes as being "first wave Feminists" because they had nothing to do with Feminism and I think it's a distortion to connect them as much as we do in society. Suffragettes wanted the right to vote; Feminists (as starting in the 1960s aka "Second-Wave") wanted to change social perceptions and get special privileges and opportunities to make their dreams a reality. The only thing the 2 groups have in common is that they are female-based, otherwise they're not really in the same vein.
Anonymous28 June 2017
This is the thing. All the groups you mention create their own definitions of what it means to be one of them. There is no "objective" definition. If you say you are a feminist, or a Christian, or whatever, then you are, and it's up to you to sort out your legitimacy with others who claim the same label. Nobody who doesn't take the same label has any business telling you whether you are or are not a "real" whatever-it-is. It's disrespectful; but moreover, they don't have the frame of reference, which is inherently subjective, to make that distinction. I get very impatient with, for example, atheists or Christians who pronounce that this or that person is "not a real Muslim." Who are they to say? Where do they get off?
Zarina Macha30 June 2017
I think second wave feminists were focusing more on socio-economic problems that had not been addressed by first wave feminists. I would say feminism used to have noble ideas and principles but now has become unnecessary or 'distorted and manipulated' as you mention.
Zarina Macha30 June 2017
It is very true, like if I say I'm from England and someone tells me I can't be because I have brown skin, who are they to tell me that? How a person defines themselves is subjective as you said.
Layla Stepford30 June 2017
I think "second wave" feminists created socio-economic problems to fix by challenging femininity and urging women to reject their gender role and take on a man's role instead. It backfired because many women still wanted their female role so now they were just taking on both; Meanwhile men never went with that trend of challenging their own gender role as they are generally, more utilitarian of the 2 groups. Ironically, men went with mother nature while women decided to challenge it (mean girls? just kidding!). So before "second wave" Feminism, there weren't any problems to be addressed by Suffragettes other than voting (which they got as a privilege compared to men, since men have to sign up for the draft to vote while women are exempt). Even before the Suffragettes, women were making a lot of 1sts in politics, business, science and even military etc. However, those women were there because they wanted to be, not because a lobbyist group told them they should be. "Second wave" Feminism pushed women into the workplace saying they "should be" there, regardless of whether they wanted it or not. Then when women got there, the workplace had been accustomed to males and a few women, so it was not able to accommodate the influx of women who were there for a Movement rather than because it was their genuine dream against all odds. “Second wave” Feminism then used this transition to capitalize, and they manipulated women into doing a lot of things they ended up regretting (like burning their bras, hyphenating their names, divorcing their husbands or treating them badly, putting work before their families – leading some women to pass their biological clock and lose the opportunity altogether, etc.). Studies show that women’s happiness has declined ever since “second wave” Feminism. How can it not when Feminism pressures women to be women and men at the same time? The only way this will be able to work, is to convince men that they should do the same thing – which most men just don’t want to do (just like most women don't really want to either). Enter “third wave” Feminism which focuses more on distorted campaigns like “he for she” and “toxic masculinity” which are just their manipulative ways of forcing men to submit to the changes they need in order to be successful. Honestly, I see Feminism as an anti-feminine and anti-female movement and I don’t see how it was ever noble. I see the Suffragettes as having nobility but not Feminism. It’s a female-prejudiced doctrine, and very similar to religion.
Zarina Macha01 July 2017
I mean there are different levels of feminism. I think feminism has been important in giving women choice and the option to be something other than a housewife who is tied to a husband. That was also kind of dangerous because it meant a woman had to depend on a man for everything and had no identity of her own. I think feminism has done a lot of good for women; if it wasn't for feminism we wouldn't be able to vote, work, get an education, or live our lives and be treated as equals to men. It is true that biologically some things men are better at and some things women are better at but some things are socially constructed as well. For example there is no biological reason that states women are better at cooking and men are better bass players or drummers. (In the music world traditionally women have always been the singer whilst men play the instruments but things have been and still are changing - and feminism has contributed to this). I think it's wrong to say feminism was never noble as its primary interest has been to help women have the same rights as men, and rather than 'become' a man, to be treated with the same respect as a man. Men in the West were respected in a way that women were not, hence the feminism that bore out of the Enlightenment. (People always think it started with the Suffragettes but it actually started a century prior to that). It wasn't all about bra-burning and calling men pigs. A lot of it was about giving women choice. I think nowadays (as you know from reading my posts) feminism has lost it's significance because Western women now have the same respect and equality that men have. Many disagree with me on this, claiming that women are still not there yet, but I have never felt unable to do something because I am a woman. So for that I am grateful for the feminist movement before me to have given me choice as a young woman.
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
I agree, like any other doctrine or religion, there are different levels of adherence and extremism etc. Let me ask you, what makes you so sure that women weren’t given a choice to be something other than a housewife? Most women today, many decades after Feminism, still say they’d like to get married, have children and be at home. “The survey said that if staying at home with the children were counted as a job, it would rank as having happier workers than any other trade or profession. Only one in seven stay-at-home parents say they are dissatisified with their role, a level of unhappiness that is less than half that found among civil servants or salesmen and women.” (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3634473/The-job-makes-happiest-Housewife-Survey-finds-stay-home-mothers-satisfied-profession.html#ixzz4ldM5dic5 ) So where is the proof that most women who were housewives, weren’t so by choice? Especially when there were already female journalists, lawyers, doctors, scientists, politicians, police, gun-testers, etc? “Some American Women Firsts Pre-Suffragettes: 1762: Ann Franklin was the first female newspaper editor in America. 1776: Margaret Corbin was the first woman to assume the role of soldier in the American Revolution and receive a pension for it. 1784: Hannah Wilkinson Slater was the first American woman to be granted a patent. 1795: Anne Parrish establishes, in Philadelphia, the House of Industry, the first charitable organization for women in America. 1812: Lucy Brewer was the first American woman to join the United States Marine Corps. 1828: Sarah Hale was the first American woman to be a major women's magazine editor. 1835: Harriot Kezia Hunt was one of the first woman to practice medicine, "clearly the first to achieve a marked success". 1848: Astronomer Maria Mitchell was the first woman to be elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 1849: Elizabeth Blackwell, born in England, was the first woman to earn a medical degree in America. 1855: Anne McDowell was the first American woman to publish a newspaper completely run by women; it was circulated weekly and titled, "Women's Advocate". 1866: Mary Walker was the first woman in America to be a recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor. 1869: Arabella Mansfield was the first female lawyer in America; she was admitted to the Iowa bar. 1870: Esther Hobart Morris was the first woman in America to serve as Justice of the Peace. 1870: Ada Kepley was the first woman to graduate from law school in America. 1872: Victoria Woodhull was the first woman to run for United States President. 1873: Ellen Swallow Richards was the first woman admitted to MIT (which made her the first accepted to any school of science or technology), and the first American woman to earn a degree in Chemistry. 1876: Louise Blanchard Bethune was the first woman to work as a professional architect in America. 1877: Helen Magill White was the first woman in America to earn the Ph.D. degree. 1887: Susanna M. Salter was elected mayor of Argonia, Kansas becoming the first woman mayor in the country. 1891: Marie Owens, born in Canada, was hired as America's first female police officer, joining the Chicago Police Department. 1893: Florence Kelley was the first woman to hold statewide office when Governor Peter Altgeld appointed her Chief Factory Inspector for the state of Illinois. 1908: The first U.S. Navy nurses, known as the Sacred Twenty, were appointed; they were all women, and were the first women to formally serve in the U.S. Navy. 1911: Harriet Quimby was the first woman to be licensed as an airplane pilot in America. 1916: Jeannette Rankin was the first woman in America to be elected to Congress. 1917: Loretta Perfectus Walsh was the first woman to enlist in the United States Navy. 1918: Opha May Johnson was the first woman to enlist in the United States Marines.”
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
You've probably never heard about these women (or many of them) because Feminism doesn't acknowledge these pioneers since they debunk the idea that Feminism gave us the rights to do these things. In fact, Feminism pushes other women instead, modern women who are open card-carrying Feminists. (I have studied a lot on women's history and Feminism in America etc.) So how has Feminism given women a choice they didn’t already have? What “sexist” law(s) did they change to give women choice when women were already allowed in colleges and workplaces etc? “That was also kind of dangerous because it meant a woman had to depend on a man for everything and had no identity of her own.” So do you consider a “wife and mother” to be lacking of identity? Do you not believe in the HUGE value that a wife and mother has on a happy and healthy, stable home? A wife is the most important woman in a man’s life and a mother is the most important woman in a child’s life, so how does she not have an identity? Are you saying that you have to have a job title as a woman in order to have an identity? That being a waitress or a maid means you have more identity than a wife or mother? Also, why is it dangerous for a woman to rely on her husband when they’re in a partnership and equally rely on each other? Shouldn’t you at least be saying it was equally dangerous for the men to depend on a woman for everything related to their health/food (mold could grow if she’s not cleaning; food poisoning could occur if she doesn’t cook right) and rearing of their children (and their well-being; not being neglected) and had no identity of their own, other than “workhorse” or “bread-provider”? Why do you say that “if it wasn't for Feminism we wouldn't be able to vote, work, get an education, or live our lives and be treated as equals to men.” Honestly? Aside from voting because that wasn’t thanks to Feminism, it was thanks to the Suffragettes. At the time of Suffragettes, before Feminism, women already had the right to work, get an education, “live their lives” (they weren’t killed for being women) and be treated as equals to men. So where do you get this idea from, that women weren’t able to do any of these things without Feminism? I think it's wrong to say Feminism was ever noble and it’s wrong to say their “primary interest has been to help women have the same rights as men, and rather than 'become' a man, to be treated with the same respect as a man”. Women were already treated with the same respect as men but with the balance of acknowledgement of gender-differences. Feminism wanted to change the gender roles, not make them equal.
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
Women in the West have always been respected in a way that men were not. If a woman was raped, there were always men who wanted to kill the rapists whereas no one really cared about when men were raped. When a little girl went missing, an entire town would take off work and go out to search for the little girl, whereas when a little boy went missing, they just put out some “Missing” and “Have you seen me?” posters. Marriage has traditionally always been joked about as enslavement of men by women, as the saying went “happy wife, happy life”. Men were the ones who had to suck up the courage to woo and ask out women, always being expected to make the first move and be suave enough to pull it off or be rejected in public. When people would start dying around a woman, no one would expect her to be the murderer until about the 3rd or 4th body; whereas most men are suspected at the 1st or 2nd body – this is how so many women got away with multiple murders by food poison, especially before they could test for it. Anytime a disaster was to happen such as the famous Titanic incident, women [and children] were always protected before men as they were seen as more valuable and sacred. After voting rights switched from property requirements to age requirements, men were expected to give up their lives in the case of war because they are considered more expendable than women. When women got the vote, they were not expected to equally give their lives in times of war. Instead, they were expected to stay back – where it was safer - and take on work, forcing women out of their chosen housewife role, so they could keep productivity going with so many men gone as in WW1 & WW2. If a man ever said something that a woman didn’t like, she has a social right to slap him in public (assault) and no one cares – even if his intent wasn’t malicious. However, if a woman said something that a man didn’t like, it was not socially acceptable for a man to slap a woman in public and everyone who saw it would care and consider it assault. So in reality, women in the West were respected in a way that men were not, and realistically Feminism in the West was founded by: (a) a distorted and manipulative narrative/fantasy that came mainly from 2 women. Betty Friedan – who wrote the Feminine Mystique - and introduced “Feminism” to the public as we know it today. She was a housewife in an abusive relationship (though she said she was abusive to him too) and had regretted her own marriage. She then self-centeredly projected that onto all women. Then Gloria Steinem capitalized on that, spreading Feminism (what you and others call “Second Wave”) and created the National Organization for Women (NOW) - arguably the most powerful and influential Feminist lobbyist group ever - and she also created the Feminist magazine, Ms. Magazine. Steinem had a mother who suffered from severe mental illness and had to be locked up. As we know, mothers are very important to children and Steinem blamed her father for this because he was the one who had [to have] her locked up. She internalized this and “made the personal, political”. She took the blame and subsequent hate she had for her dad and turned it onto all men and used Feminism to make a movement and political lobbyist group out of it. She was a very smart lady despite her emotional problems and sexist outlooks. She worked for the CIA (not a conspiracy theory) and knew how to manipulate the public, the law and the political system, which is part of why her Feminist movement is still hanging on today despite constant and consistent failure and hypocrisy etc.
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
(b) a “sexist” view in society that is biased in favor of women. Western women have always been among the most privileged in the world, in any time. It is out of that entitlement, the fact that women were used to society catering to their wants and needs, that Feminism was allowed to thrive and get support despite the fact that most women didn’t actually agree with it. When Feminism came out and said in the 70s that “Feminism is the belief that women are human beings”, there was a social pressure not to go against it. Feminism has always been a fascist-like group that works to pressure/bully people into what they want. They want women to stop being housewives/mothers and work? They claimed being a housewife/mother is oppressive and working is liberating. They want women to leave their men? They said “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” and “we’re becoming the men we wanted to marry”. (Those are clearly anti-male and anti-marriage statements.) They want society to have more feminine than masculine values? They claim “toxic masculinity”, put little boys on drugs to decrease their desire to be physically active while cutting recess (which is due to natural gender differences, not a mental illness) and focus on “empowering” girls while ignoring boys or telling boys they’re part of the problem and need to change. As far as the concept of “female empowerment” and/or “female rights” in the world, it did not start in America with Suffragettes – you are right - and was mostly popular in France. However I am talking about Western Feminism, or what you call Second Wave & Third Wave Feminism. “It wasn't all about bra-burning and calling men pigs.” - I never said it was “all” about that. I said it was all about challenging gender roles and nature, along with a ton of regrettable details that just keep accumulating. I read recently about Feminists trying to say that women shouldn’t wear tampons anymore. Radical movements with radical ideas attract radical people. Sometimes they can be good, like the American Revolution, and sometimes they are not good, like Feminism. (https://twitter.com/KamaPost/status/637006943693967361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bustle.com%2Farticles%2F109552-what-is-free-bleeding-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-controversial-menstruation-movement) “A lot of it was about giving women choice.” -What choice? I think Feminism has never had significance because Western women have always had the same respect and equality that men have; they just used to choose to embrace gender differences more so than today. If we decide in modern times that we’d like to focus less on our gender differences, that’s fine but it’s historically inaccurate to say that the people before us were “sexist” or “misogynist” just because they chose differently than we do today. The people who claim that “women are still not there yet”, say this because they don’t want “choice” and “equality”, they want “quotas” and “conformity”. It’s not about choice for Feminists, it’s about making their fantasy/goal/doctrine into a reality. Why should Feminism tell us how many women should be in each job, especially so long as women are not limited from that job? Well the Feminism movement never gave me any choice that wasn’t already given to me by the men and women who wrote and decided on the law before they ever came around. So I’m not thankful for Feminism in any way, shape or form and I think society would have been better off and more egalitarian without their sexist doctrine getting in the way. By the way, have you ever seen “The Red Pill” documentary?
Zarina Macha02 July 2017
Wow this is very interesting and well put. You're right, I didn't know of any of the women who did those things. However, don't you think part of it is because it's always been men writing the history books and men being celebrated for being the scientists lawyers writers etc? Like in schools we should be taught about these women but instead the majority of history's great people that we learn of are men. I guess it would make sense for feminists also not to acknowledge successful women before the movement. That article you mention is from the Daily Mail; not that what is said is necessarily untrue, but the Mail is a very right-wing conservative pro-traditionalist paper so will have that bias. I agree that being a wife and a mother can be rewarding for some but for many that simply wasn't enough, and what feminists like Betty Friedan and Germaine Greer were trying to say is that women could also have careers if they wanted. Nowadays lots of women have careers and its become easier to pursue a career than it was before feminism. I meant it's dangerous to rely on a husband in the sense that if you're in an abusive relationship (like Friedan as you said) or unhappy with your partner then you would have nowhere to go because you depend on him for everything. Also this is a personal thing but I don't think it's good to rely on another person too much, like to a degree yes but I think self-sufficiency is important for basic survival. Also back then a man could abuse his wife or rape her and it was overlooked because they were married; marital rape used to not even be considered rape. Of course now feminism has taken it to the extreme and calls everything rape, and men get false rape accusations, but if it wasn't for women's rights we would probably all still be stuck in (some) unhappy marriages and wouldn't have much say in what we wanted. The Founding Fathers were all men; there have only been 6 Queens in the history of the British monarchy, most of the famous scientists and inventors were men. Most of the major things we know about have been done by men, and if we want to know about women we have to research a bit more. I agree that women like the ones you mentioned should be celebrated for the great things they've done and it shouldn't be something that you have to 'dig deep' to find, it should just be taught in schools like I mentioned earlier. We don't know what the modern West would look like today without 1st and 2nd wave feminism. Things like the pill and abortion rights may not exist, less women may be encouraged to pursue a career, and women may still be paid less than men. I think you present interesting points but I can't say I agree with your overall premise that feminism has done nothing to help women which is what I'm overall getting from you. Yep I've seen The Red Pill, thought it was fantastic and sad. Liked it cos like Cassie I used to identify as a liberal feminist but then realised that when you see the other side of the coin the current movement is awful.
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
I know my posts are long but I'm giving a lot of context so I'll cut out the redundant quotes from here on out as much as possible: Well thank you for taking the time to read it and being open to discussing it. At this point, many Feminists just call me a misogynist against my own gender and call it a day. Haha (Doesn’t exactly change my view on it.) Since neither of us could really prove it, let’s just say that you are right and it did start with men not really caring about women’s accomplishments – though, for context sake, I didn’t find these women on Feminist websites etc, I found them looking up “women’s first” in regular history websites. So men overlooked women – why hasn’t Feminism corrected that yet? It’s been over 50 years and there are plenty of “women’s history” and “women’s studies” classes in colleges now, right? So why aren’t the Feminists teaching us more about these type of women? A personal hero of mine, that I am very thankful for what she did for me, is Phyllis Schlafly. Many women credit her as pretty much single-handedly stopping the ERA movement, which was pushed by Feminists. She was a living example of everything Feminism lied about. From earning a bachelor's degree in 1944, a master's degree in 1945, working as a ballistics gunner and technician at the largest ammunition plant in the world - a male dominated field - during WWII and being a mother of 6. She was a lawyer who read about the ERA, vehemently disagreed and saw that Feminism was hiding some of the facts from women that they knew they’d disagree with. So she started campaigning and writing pamphlets to let women know about the “untold” provisions of the ERA, which ultimately turned women against it and is the main reason why it lost – women had been empowered through knowledge of the bill no thanks to Feminist manipulation and distortion. If you won’t accept the article from the Daily Mail, what about Time Magazine/Gallup poll? “56% of American mothers prefer to stay at home.” (http://time.com/4068559/gallup-poll-stay-at-home-mothers/) Or Forbes? “84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.” (https://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/09/12/is-opting-out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/#d3d688d623a2) What about the fact that there are still Feminist articles portraying stay-at-home life as oppressive or not the right choice? Yes, it’s true that some women don’t want to be housewives/mothers (though I wouldn’t say that’s not “enough” as it implies it’s lesser than, rather than just different, unless you are making that argument); and that more women nowadays have careers and that it’s easier for women to pursue careers than it was before Feminism. However, the two are not as connected as they seem. Something else happened at the same time as Feminism, which helped Feminism be in the right place at the right time: The technology boom. Women had more time on their hands. Chores took less time, laundry took a few hours not all day, leftovers could be heated up with microwaves and refrigerators made shopping trips for groceries less frequent. Outside of the home in the workplace, machines were being made that made things easier for women (and men) to be in the workplace such as air conditioning, calculators, cash registers, printers, scanners, bar codes, post-it notes, etc. There were tons of inventions that made the workplace more comfortable for any worker, especially compared to the jobs like truck driver, factory worker or coal miner etc. that had conditions so bad, it warranted what we now refer to as “worker’s unions”. Conditions have always been worse and more dangerous in male-dominated fields. The ones women don’t find so “liberating”, I guess.
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
Furthermore, when women get older, they’re more likely to look back and regret not having kids and a family, spending too much time at work, more than they are likely to regret not working enough and having kids and a family instead. More women say “I wish I had more time with my family” rather than “I wish I spent more time in the office”. Many women do find family and personal connections to be more fulfilling than working and careerist accomplishments. Of course, that makes it dangerous to be in an abusive relationship though, not dangerous to be married. I understand what you are saying here (“self-sufficiency is important for basic survival.”), but I also just want to say that a big part of evolution and how we survived this long and made it to where we are today, is because we did choose to embrace gender roles as that was most important for basic survival. Men were better at getting outside resources as well as defending against outside predators whereas women were better at insuring survival of their offspring and that partnership made both more effective in their roles, leading to survival and successful evolution. We started out less different in terms of gender and over time, our gender differences have increased not increased. So according to survival of the fittest, gender roles were the “fittest” for us – particularly those who wanted to have kids and families at some point. Part of feminism taking rape accusations to the extreme includes marital rape. Women took marriage far more seriously before no-fault divorce, when they could leave for any reason (delighting gold diggers everywhere). Most women did not come from broken families, they came from traditional families and had fathers who were more than vigilante about their well-being. Potential suitors not only had the pressure of wooing the women they were interested in, but proving to their fathers that they were worthy as well. Again, this was to protect women; No one was protecting the men from bad marriages. So just to make it clear, I am not saying that marital rape never happened to any woman unable to get out of a bad marriage; However I am saying this was extremely rare and not really a sexist issue but an individual character issue. Is it not just as bad when women manipulate men through “marital rape” when they choose to get pregnant without his knowledge or consent? Forcing him to commit to fathering a child he may not be ready for? Furthermore, is this really the rape that we should be focused on? Not all rape is equal. A serial rapist who climbs into people’s bedrooms and beats women into rape is far worse than a husband who “rapes” his wife (and how do you even prove that)? Not to be cold here, but honestly, what are the damages? They’re married so they’ve already had sex before and she’s not a virgin. It’s immoral and wrong, but should it really be at the front of “women’s issues”? Is focusing on this kind of rape really going to protect most of the women being raped? “The Founding Fathers were all men”. Yes, the same ones who all gave their lives fighting in the Revolution so that men and women would equally have freedom from the British monarchy. What do numbers have to do with sexism? What does it matter if there was only 1 female (insert job) or 1,000? As long as women have that choice/opportunity, what does it have to do with sexism? If we’re expected to make it law that no women should ever experience any adversity in the workplace or life simply because she’s a woman, isn’t that sexism? Besides, men face far more scrutiny than women, especially publicly and even more so in modern times whereas women are often protected from any scrutiny or criticism or even unpleasant comments. Why is it considered rude to make a teasing remark about a woman’s age or weight yet perfectly okay to do so about a man’s? It’s not sexism, it’s gender differences and gender preferences. Most women don’t want to be treated the same way men are (by other men) and most men don’t want to be treated the same way women are (by other women).
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
“Most of the major things we know about have been done by men, and if we want to know about women we have to research a bit more.” This is true, as is the fact that the most “major things we know about” have been done by men rather than women. Men invented or discovered electricity, vaccinations, the computer, the TV, the phone, the internet, gravity, math, space engineering, etc. This is not at all to say that women are not capable of doing these things but on average, men do tend to be more inventive (starting from scratch) than women; They also have better improvisation skills on average. On the flip side, women tend to be more structured so their accomplishments tend to be more innovative (making something already there even better). That’s part of what makes men and women together such a good team. Furthermore, as I said before, why isn’t Feminism doing more about the “we have to research a bit more” part? Most of those women I listed for you are not in the “Women’s Hall of Fame” nor is Phyllis Schlafly or a lot of other famous women who conflicted with Feminist values. At least men had the excuse of these great inventions by men taking up their time, space and focus – if we go with that argument of men purposefully excluding women. What’s the excuse of Feminism to overlook these women, other than that they don’t obey their doctrine? So then how is Feminism a pro-women’s movement rather than a pro-Feminist movement? (Men aren’t in charge of the Women’s Hall of Fame and even if they were, why would they exclude anti-Feminist women in favor of more modern Feminist women?) “We don't know what the modern West would look like today without 1st and 2nd wave feminism.” Not exactly but we can make educated guesses and projections based on the contextual evidence at hand. The pill was invented by a man born in the Silent Generation, before Feminism, even though his pill came out during the era of Feminism. “In 1951, Margaret Sanger met Pincus at a dinner hosted by Abraham Stone, director of the Margaret Sanger Research Bureau and medical director and vice president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), and procured a small grant from PPFA for Pincus to begin hormonal contraceptive research.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Goodwin_Pincus) I will give you that Feminism happened to be on the right side of the issue when it came to abortion and did play a big role in getting that right. Two things though: 1. Abortion was never a sexist issue like Feminist said, about men wanting to control women’s bodies. More women were against abortion than men and many people saw it as murder – as well as many religions are against it. 2. Roe v. Wade was decided by an all-male Supreme Court at the time which decided in favor of abortion rights because it was a Constitutional right. Even though Feminists were the ones to choose to include this in their platform, anyone who brought this to court at the time would’ve won – with or without help from Feminists. I also agree with you that less women would be encouraged to pursue a career but what level of encouragement is enough? Any level of encouragement disproves sexism. Feminism makes career a priority though, pushing girls to focus on it early on in high school but getting upset when anyone tells young women in college they should start planning things a certain way if they know they want to be mothers to avoid passing their biological clock. So if Feminism is pro-choice, then why do they only support one and bash the other?
Layla Stepford02 July 2017
Women are not paid less than men, it’s a Feminist myth. This was briefly covered in that Red Pill movie as well. Age, Education, Experience, Health & Other Benefits, Overtime Hours, Parental Status (Including Amount of Children), Part-Time Hours, Vacation/Time Off, Willingness to Negotiate Pay or Ask for Raise, Type of Work (Field, Responsibilities, Conditions [including safety]) are all factors NOT included in the “wage gap”. (http://www.aei.org/publication/some-thoughts-on-equal-pay-day-and-the-23-gender-pay-gap-myth/) (https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2014/05/19/90039/explaining-the-gender-wage-gap/) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/04/02/the-equal-pay-day-factoid-that-women-make-78-cents-for-every-dollar-earned-by-men/?utm_term=.5c6b77e46211) (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/04/14/here-are-the-facts-behind-that-79-cent-pay-gap-factoid/?utm_term=.29ff13657437) Yes, I am thoroughly convinced that Feminism has done nothing to help women that wouldn’t have happened organically without Feminism involvement and that furthermore, Feminism involvement has made 90% of problems worse, not better, including adding new ones.
Zarina Macha03 July 2017
You're certainly not a misogynist, that's a silly thing to say. When I mentioned payment I meant that before the Equal Pay Act women could be paid less than men just for being women. I'm familiar with the wage gap now being a myth. I agree that the 'having it all' mentality has put too much strain on women, as I mentioned in another post about stay at home mothers vs women with full-time careers. One of my favourite books, I don't know how she does it, addresses this very well. The one thing I think you were very wrong about is the rape thing. I agree that rape is not a feminist issue, it's a humanitarian one. But rape is rape, and it's not fair to say some cases are worse - it's still bad. Most rape occurs within people who know each other, such as a family member or husband/boyfriend. I think it's very wrong to say 'what are the damages' as being raped or assaulted by someone you love and care for can be more psychologically damaging than it being a total stranger. (I know you're not saying it isn't important, just saying that you were being a bit dismissive.) But yes I agree rape needs to be solved by looking at the psychological reasons people in society do that, rather than saying it's a 'feminist' issue which of course it isn't considering men get raped as well.
Layla Stepford04 July 2017
No, definitely not misogynist! Haha But because of my experiences, I do tend to lean more conservative when it comes to family values; And Feminists seem to really hate women who are more pro-family than pro-careerist (though I'm not anti-careerist, I just believe in having all of the facts before making a decision to limit chance of regrets). I am sorry for my mistake about the time period of wage gap that you were referring to, thank you for clarifying. To that, I would say: 1. This goes to my point that we didn't need Feminism because the same year this law was made, Betty Friedan was just publishing The Feminine Mystique and Feminism (what you call 2nd wave) hadn't started yet. So it wasn't the Feminists who gave us the Equal Pay Act but just a really great man of integrity, one of the best presidents America has ever had: John F. Kennedy. 2. This goes to my point that men and women are equal but different and Feminism wants them to be the same. a) There definitely may have been some financial discrimination going on merely based on gender - which is logical from a business point of view as women are less reliable when it comes to bottom-line business as they can get pregnant and would have to (as well as most likely want to) leave the workforce; whereas if a man gets [a woman] "accidentally pregnant", it'll only force him to work more because of child support so the workplace benefits more from hiring men than women – and pay/salary maintains those employees. If the business thinks the woman will be leaving soon anyways, it makes sense they’d want to invest their money in employees they believe will be there longer. I’m not saying it’s moral or proper, just looking at it from a business perspective for context sake, showing that it wasn’t a misogynist “hatred of women” but more of a fact of nature, albeit inconvenient for working women in this case. That being said, if a woman was not married and a careerist-type, as you saw by that list I gave earlier, they made it happen. b) Just as there are multiple factors to women being paid less today, there were also multiple factors to women being paid less in the past. Fewer women chose to work and were not seen as steady choices because of their likelihood to choose family over work and women were less aggressive/assertive about demanding certain wages, as were men, especially who didn’t have seniority or big work accomplishments as incentive for raises etc. So that’s why I say that a recurring theme I see in Feminism is that even if they point out real problems or areas that could use improvement in society, it’s often rarely about sexism let alone just pure misogyny. Another theme of Feminism is the hyperbole and extremism. And yet another theme being anti-male, constantly searching for criticisms of men and blaming them for things yet always excusing women’s faults/choices and never looking at how men might not be at fault etc. Very “us vs. them” mentality. [In modern times, more “Feminism vs. everyone else” than “women vs. men” as that didn’t totally work out.] A lot of anti-Feminists, myself included, believe that women can “have it all” if they really want to. The difference is anti-Feminists tend to say one at a time, either career then kids or kids then career; whereas Feminists tend to insist that they should be able to occur at the same time – have it all, all at once. Well, if you believe it’s “not fair to say some cases [of rape] are worse” than others, then do you believe that getting “raped” as a grown woman by a man you committed to getting married to and having sex to, is equally as bad as being a 12 yr old virgin and having your first sexual encounter ever be rape before you’ve reached puberty and it was a crazy, violent stranger who snuck into your bedroom at night and beat you into submission? Personally, I don’t think it’s fair to say they are the same or “equal”. So I guess it's a difference of perspective.
Layla Stepford04 July 2017
You said “Most rape occurs within people who know each other, such as a family member or husband/boyfriend.” Do you have any sources on that? I know that most rape occurs within people who know each other ambiguously, like a neighbor or friend of a friend etc. I’ve never seen any studies that say it’s most likely to be a family member and certainly not a husband or boyfriend. In fact, I’m sure I’ve read things that said a husband is least likely to rape you than anyone else you know but I’ll look into that. I never said that “being raped or assaulted by someone you love and care for” couldn’t “be more psychologically damaging than it being a total stranger.” However, I do think being raped by a father, step-father, mother’s boyfriend, dad’s friend or literally anyone on the planet Earth is more “psychologically damaging” than it being one’s own husband. Quite frankly, I have a hard time grasping the concept of “marital rape” as I don’t understand how it’s “rape” if you’re married. The only way I can see “marital rape” occurring is if it occurs during the divorce proceedings but everything I’ve read about “marital rape”, says that it is an incredibly rare occurrence. You are right to say that I was being a bit dismissive of it because I was. I think that, of all rape that occurs in any 1 town, city, country, continent or all of planet Earth, that is really the only one that is a waste of taxpayer money being used to get police and courts involved. Marriage doesn’t happen unless two grown adults consent to it – aside from cases of minors with parental consent – so that seems more like an individual choice problem. Proving rape is an expensive and tough process, and I don’t think those resources should be wasted on “marital rape”. To put this in more context: I see “marital rape” as the “jaywalking” of rape crimes. Yes, it is wrong and it shouldn’t happen – I do NOT endorse or encourage it - but we can’t afford to go after every single case and I’d rather see justice for the kind of rapists who don’t give their victim half of their money and possessions first. I want resources to go towards catching and decreasing serial rapists, rapist-murderers, child rapists, prisoner rapists etc. before we worry about “marital rapists”. So I see it as a matter of priority, efficiency and practicality, I guess. Why spend resources helping people who made bad decisions when that money could go towards helping innocent people who were victims of circumstances out of their control first?
Zarina Macha04 July 2017
https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence https://rapecrisis.org.uk/mythsvsrealities.php I've seen these similar statistics before saying that rape is more likely to be from someone you know. It's actually less common for it to occur from a stranger down a dark alleyway, and that's one of the common myths about rape. I know you're trying to look at this from a logical and pragmatic perspective which I respect but I think rape is rape, and it doesn't matter if it's from a stranger or from your partner, it's still rape. I know people who have been raped and in those cases it was from people they knew closely. And as you know from reading my other post I experienced a form of sexual assault from my then-boyfriend. It doesn't matter who it is, the point is the effect it has on you after. The mentality of not grasping how it's rape if you're married is dangerous because that is what made rape cases between a husband and wife difficult to see as a severe crime. Rape is non-consensual sex as we know; just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you'll want sex 100% of the time they want it. You could be tired or pregnant or not in the mood, whatever. If your partner forces you into it or does it against your will then that's assault. I know this conversation has sort of spiraled into being about rape but I think it's important we clarify these things.
Layla Stepford04 July 2017
I don't mind you challenging my opinions at all. In fact, I welcome and appreciate it - especially because you do so in an open-minded/discussion, respectful manner (so thank you for that). I embrace clarification, I prefer it over making assumptions that can’t be clarified. :) As I had said to you before “I know that most rape occurs within people who know each other ambiguously, like a neighbor or friend of a friend etc. I’ve never seen any studies that say it’s most likely to be a family member and certainly not a husband or boyfriend.” The first cite you sourced falls in line with this, as the relationship with the highest percentage was “an acquaintance 45%”. I think it’s a shame that they lump in “boyfriend/girlfriends” in with “current spouses” and “former spouses” as there is a HUGE difference between a boyfriend/girlfriend and a legally contracted husband/wife; as well as a big difference between current and former spouse. I am sure that if we could see the breakdown between boyfriend/girlfriend and legal spouses, it would be much more clear that the two groups shouldn’t be lumped in together. I’d also like to know what they consider a “boyfriend” as well as what they consider “rape” (due to colloquial differences etc). The second cite you sourced was more opinion than factual and I had some differences of opinion with it. If you’d like to discuss them, we can. For now, I’ll wait to see your response. So just for clarification sake, of the 2 examples I gave you - with a pre-pubescent virgin being brutally raped by a stranger compared to a wife being raped by a husband she’s in the process of divorcing – your response is that you do see them as equal? I wanted to try and give you one more example of context if you don’t mind for how I see marital rape that I think is better than the jaywalking example. I see marital rape as a billionaire who is robbed of $10,000 compared to a working class person (virgin) who is robbed of $10,000. Stealing is always wrong but from an objective point of view, the billionaire will hardly feel the loss financially (it’ll be mostly a pride issue), whereas the working class person could potentially become poor after such a devastating lost. So would I rather use taxpayer money to replace the billionaire’s $10,000 or the working class person’s $10,000? I will likely choose the working class person every time because I don’t see the loss as equal to them both even though it was an equal amount and the same exact crime. I hope that makes better sense of where I am coming from on that issue. Of course the billionaire is still robbed but it’s really hard for me to have the same sympathy and incentive to help as when the working person is robbed and actually devastated by it rather than just upset about it. As I said before, I don’t understand the concept of how a husband can rape a wife unless they’re in the middle of divorce and I don’t see how that should become society’s issue. Getting raped by a boyfriend or a guy you’re dating is much different than getting “raped” by a husband, with whom you legally promised to have sex with. (I say this because if you don’t have sex after marriage, the husband can get an annulment as opposed to the divorce because the marriage will be seen as never having been “consecrated”. Legally, they wouldn’t be divorced as the court would say they were never married since they never had sex.) I know people who have been raped and molested as children as well, though usually by family members. I think that you and I may have different definitions of rape and sexual assault.
Layla Stepford04 July 2017
You said “The mentality of not grasping how it's rape if you're married is dangerous because that is what made rape cases between a husband and wife difficult to see as a severe crime.” I respect that this is your opinion and you genuinely believe it, however I genuinely believe that marital “rape” between a husband and wife is not a severe crime and shouldn’t be classified as such. We have civil offenses and criminal offenses because some crimes are worse than others. I see marital rape as a civil offense, not a criminal one. Maybe you and I have the same definition of rape and sexual assault, but different definitions of “force” and “choice”.
Zarina Macha05 July 2017
It's less likely and less common for a 12 year old virgin to be raped by a stranger who crawls into her bedroom at night than it is for it to occur by someone you are with or are acquainted with. It's not about whether I see them as equal or not, more that I just see them both as severe crimes. I still don't get how you don't get that a husband can rape his wife. Rape is unconsensual sex. Just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you'll want sex everytime. Maybe check this out: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/news/does-marital-rape-even-exist I presume you're not religious but some of the major religions hold this view too, that if you're married then you're legally required to have sex whenever your partner wants even if you're not in the mood. Sex is meant to be mutual, and if the other person isn't feeling it you can't force them into it.
Zarina Macha05 July 2017
Here's another article: https://psychcentral.com/lib/marital-rape/
Layla Stepford06 July 2017
Thank you for providing those links so I could have more context to your opinion on marital rape. While it is less likely for a 12 yr old virgin to be raped by a stranger than a non-virgin, older person to be raped by someone they are “acquainted with”, being raped by someone you are in a committed relationship with – primarily legally – is less likely than *both* of those things. Even the statistics you provided in this link: (https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence) stated that it is more likely to be raped by a stranger than a spouse/boyfriend, even when counting current spouses, former spouses and current “boyfriends/girlfriends” altogether in the same group. You said “It's not about whether I see them as equal or not, more that I just see them both as severe crimes.”, yet that is what my question was about, since I wanted to know what your opinion was in that particular context – especially as compared to my own, of not seeing them as equal. Also, my question was not whether one was more likely/common than the other, but rather if the psychological impact of both situations could really be looked at as “equal” or the “same” without doing a disservice to the important differences between the two situations. It seems you label them both “equally severe” but I cannot. I think it’s a disservice to females to undervalue their virginity by disregarding the importance of that, particularly in context to rape. Losing your virginity through rape does have more negative psychological impacts on someone who lost their virginity than if they had lost it through their consent. Therefore, how could rape of a virgin not be considered the most severe when it comes to rape scenarios? Furthermore, whenever I think of rape, one of the worst parts (as a female) is that someone is trying to enter your intimate space without your consent. So I also fail to see how the notion of someone raping you, that you would never consent to have sex with in the first place, isn’t worse than being raped by someone that you’ve already let enter that space and more psychologically damaging because of the extra factors involved. I guess part of my problem with the idea of “marital rape” is that I don’t understand this idea that women are so weak and naïve that they marry rapist men who marry them just so they can beat and drug them to force them into sex. If a woman has already consented to have sex with a man by committing to him through marriage, then why would he need to rape her? The scenario of a wife saying “not tonight” and her husband either hitting her or drugging her to force her into it, is so incredibly rare and perpetuates the Feminist myth that your husband is “more” or even just “likely” to rape you, when he’s one of the least likely persons you will ever encounter who will rape you. A wife is more likely to rape her husband, than a husband raping his wife. It is somewhat common for women – in marriage and outside of marriage – to lie about birth control, etc. and seduce the man they’re with to get themselves pregnant without his consent. You said, “Just because you're married to someone doesn't mean you'll want sex everytime.” Well, I completely understand that, I am married, and I don’t see much relevance between that and “marital rape”. Most “marital rape” occurs during separation/divorce. I’ve never even heard of any cases where a husband actually beat his wife into having sex with him except maybe in India, but not in the Western world. I don’t know if you think I hold the opinion that “if you're married then you're legally required to have sex whenever your partner wants even if you're not in the mood” but I just want to make it clear that I don’t. (And you presumed correct about me not being religious.)
Layla Stepford06 July 2017
While it can be argued that people who grew up in religion aren’t as educated or encouraged enough to choose for themselves, the fact remains that believing in a religion is still a choice and choosing to conform to a religion that says you have to do things you will not like or agree with, is a bad choice in my opinion, but still a personal choice that doesn’t need to involve the law/police etc. Also many of the situations presented in the “example” article were not real examples of marital rape. As you said, “rape is *nonconsensual* sex” so if a wife agrees to have sex with her husband because she doesn’t want to just tell him “not tonight” or didn’t choose to marry a man that respects her enough to drop it after the first time or so, why is that now society’s problems? I don’t believe the government should have to act as a marriage counselor and/or marriage matchmaker. Adults choose who to date and who to sign a contract with and marry. Adults also choose who to have sex with and when, unless they are beaten or drugged without their consent. So if you see all rape as “equal” and “severe” including “persuaded sex” then I hope you also hold women equally accountable on the other side. As I mentioned before, women lie about birth control to rape men into getting them pregnant; Or women target men who have money and are drinking and they throw themselves at him so they can accuse him of rape later for his money – which is all rape in itself as he wouldn’t have agreed, had he known she was using him for the money. Gold-digging women constantly rape men for their money. Also, when a wife says that if a man doesn’t say exactly what she wants to hear or acts the way she wants him to, then she will not have sex with him, is that a form of rape? As I said before, “marital rape” is a Feminist exaggeration in their attacks against men. The vast majority of husbands will never rape their wife yet they will experience their wife withholding sex from them if they don’t “behave” the way she wants him to. That’s coercion just the same as if a man says that without sex, he won’t hang out with you anymore. Both genders participate in manipulation to get what they want. Do you really believe the government should be involved in every one of these kinds of situations?
Zarina Macha07 July 2017
I absolutely agree that women can manipulate their husbands by using sex as a weapon (which I think is lame and childish) and use men for their money. I don't know if I'd agree that a woman seducing a man for material gain is the same as rape, because if he consents then it's not rape but it is manipulation and coercion which is a form of emotional abuse. I think it's a bit unfair to say a woman is 'weak and naive' for marrying a horrible man as some men can be very charming and appear 'good' but then change several years down the line. I guess I also feel strongly about this because I know someone who was raped by their partner, however granted they were not married and were separated at this point but they did already have a child together. Hence I can see the emotional damage being raped by someone you are/were in love with can bring. Some men can be abusive to their wives and this includes rape; in the movie 'What's love got to do with it' it shows how Tina Turner was raped by Ike Turner and they were married. Of course this isn't all men, but we can't deny the fact that it happens. I do think the government should be involved in cases of rape or domestic violence or abuse in order to protect those involved. I also think society places too much emphasis on 'virginity'. Of course it's horrible to lose your virginity via rape or assault or to someone who was cruel to you but needless to say you can get over it. I don't mean that in a horrible way, just in a truthful way. The guy you have your 'first time' with isn't necessarily going to be your special prince or whatever Disney fairytale shit (lol). Virginity is seen as this sacred thing or whatever but I don't think it should be, I think it's just about choice but it doesn't define whether you're a good or bad person or whatever. (I know you didn't say that, again just clarifying. Conversing with you is so intellectually rewarding!) Perhaps because I'm still fairly young and have not had masses of experience with guys I'm not sure of the whole marital rape scenario. But I still stand by the fact that rape is rape regardless. I think whatever the case, whether you're raped by a stranger who takes your virginity or your partner, it's horrible but you can still get over it through time and therapy and loving yourself again.
Layla Stepford08 July 2017
If you don’t think that “a woman seducing a man for material gain is the same as rape, because if he consents then it's not rape but it is manipulation and coercion which is a form of emotional abuse” then why do you look at it any differently the other way, when a man “seduces” a woman for sexual gain because if she “consents then it's not rape but it is manipulation and coercion which is a form of emotional abuse”? If the wife says “yes” to avoid debating it any further, as in most of those examples from the link, isn’t that the same thing? Well the reason why I say that is two-fold: 1. I think it's unfair to say a woman is not responsible for her actions of choosing the wrong men yet men are responsible for his actions of choosing the wrong women. This bias implies that men are so superior to women in judgment and accountability, that they take the brunt of all decisions involving “their” woman; like when a parent takes the brunt of all decisions involving their children. If we are to base laws etc. on this bias, perhaps it explains why political leaders and other such leadership positions don’t fall equally 50/50 male-female. After all, if women aren’t/can’t be held as accountable for their own judgements as men are, should they really have that much responsibility? I think this bias undermines women. 2. I don’t know if you are familiar with the Lifetime Network but during the time period of about 1987-1998 (which was a big pro-Feminist period in USA), this network came out with a series of films involving exactly what you said, “a man who is very charming and appear 'good' but then change several years down the line”. This “Lifetime Myth” really spread in society and was pushed somewhat in the mainstream – and the “abuser” was usually a white male. They got some complaints about scaring women out of relationships by projecting this false myth (as it was proven to be very rare) and eventually Lifetime started focusing more on movies with more female-female dynamics and based-on-true stories with female perpetrators etc. 3. As I mentioned above, the notion that a man who is “very charming and appear 'good' but then change several years down the line.” Is very rare and usually happens when the woman expresses poor judgment. It is very common that everyone else around her knows that the guy is a jerk etc. but she’s the only one who “can’t see him for who he really is” and it’s usually because she chooses not to, because she doesn’t want to, as she’d rather be with him than face the truth. I don’t believe the government should step in like a parent and make the better decision for her - unless we’re going to say that women are weaker than men, less accountable and worse at discernment, and then change things in society to reflect women’s inferiority to men. We can’t say women are independent and equal to men, yet should be held less responsible for their own choices. Furthermore, quite a few women lie about “marital rape”, especially when they are getting divorced/separated because they’re distraught at the separation and they want to get revenge on him some way. Claiming that he raped her is a good way for some women to get sympathy from those around them and get people on her side, especially if they have the same friends etc. In cases where they have children together, she could also be saying this to ensure he doesn’t get custody, again as revenge for the break up etc, to keep his children away from him.
Layla Stepford08 July 2017
So just to be clear, if any man rapes a woman by means of physically assaulting her, tying her up or drugging her without her consent – regardless of relationship status with the woman – I think he should always be convicted as that is psychotic and a danger to society. However, if a woman says her separated husband came over and talked her into it even though she didn’t really want to, but he did one last time etc. or any other consensual situation like that, it really shouldn’t be considered as “rape” as I think that is offensive to real “rape victims”. (Not saying that your friend was lying or anything, just saying the situation I am talking about, is more common than actual rape, as you say did happen with your friend.) Also, I didn’t say being raped by someone close to you like that couldn’t be emotionally damaging – just that being raped by someone you’d never let in your body, or before you are ready to let people in your body, is more emotionally damaging because of those extra factors. Just as much as we acknowledge that not all men commit “marital rape”, but we can't deny the fact that it happens; We should also acknowledge the fact that most men do not and that we shouldn’t exaggerate the situation (by changing “coercion” into “consent”) as it helps no one involved. Also, I’d like to clarify really quick on the most common rapist relationship status, “acquaintance”. This is usually a neighbor, someone who lives in the same neighborhood or building complex, a co-worker not known well, or friend of a friend, etc. “Acquaintance” is usually not your best guy friend or even your classmate, etc. It’s usually someone you do not choose to interact with on a normal basis, but tends to be within the same vicinity as you on a regular basis. This is why it’s so important that women are more aware when they live alone or are walking alone etc. as most victims are targeted when they are alone. Married women are least likely to get raped, even by strangers than single women as married woman tend to have their husband around which dissuades rapists from trying, as they know they are more likely to face physical consequences as a result. Feminism doesn’t like it when we say that because it goes against their “women are better off without men and don’t need them for anything” argument. They don’t like the fact that these side benefits of safety do exist for women who are married. I can also tell you from experience, I faced far more “harassment” from men when I was alone than I do when I walk around with my husband. That’s just a part of nature. [I also face less “harassment” from men when I am out with another woman my age than when I am alone. There is safety in numbers, but as far as when rapists are concerned – this is more true when men are present, as more women sometimes means “more victims”.] Since you do think the government should be involved in cases of rape or domestic violence or abuse in order to protect those involved, I’d love to hear more about your opinion on whether you think the government should then take more precautions to protect men from the kind of domestic abuse we acknowledged earlier? I assume you care about men’s rights as well as women’s rights, but correct me if I’m wrong.
Layla Stepford08 July 2017
Well I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on the virginity thing, as I think the opposite. I think society places too little emphasis on 'virginity' which is why more women regret their first time post-Feminism than they did pre-Feminism. I know Feminists disagree, but for a lot of women pre-Feminism, life was more like a Disney fairytale. Most women did get married and along the way: they were courted and taken out on nice dates, introduced him to the family for approval (since parents are older and wiser about long-term choices) and vice-versa, got engaged and then got married and only ever gave their bodies to the 1 man who committed to loving them and taking care of them for the rest of their lives. Since most marriages were not abusive, they were pretty great – even when money was low, you will hear people from that generation talk about how they relied on each other and got through those rough times because family and character/integrity were the most important things; not money. Since Feminism really broke up families, we’ve lost that atmosphere in society yet many women today still want the same things their female ancestors wanted and don’t understand why Feminists say “they can have it all” yet they are having harder times getting married today than ever before. The anti-romance, anti-Disney fairytale thing also started in the same period as the Lifetime movies when Feminism was pushing that women needed to be “independent” and “not rely on a guy for anything” as though that were the end of the world or so harmful for young girls to see. You’ll notice the princesses that came out in that period are more sassy and rebellious, whereas even today they have moved back towards more traditional pleasant characteristics (patient, understanding, accepting, friendly, optimistic, etc.) but just include less men to make Feminists happy. The notion that you needed to be single or not married to be “independent” and have a real “identity” wasn’t the truth, they just wanted to push anti-traditional family messages, as that has always been their primary focus, to keep men and women apart rather than coexisting peacefully. Even though women are harder to understand than men (more complex), because of the extremism and biases in society today: more men actually understand women, more than women understand men. Most women don’t even really bother getting to understand the differences between them and men, they just expect men to be the same as them and view them through their own shoes rather than his. This is why our society is so biased towards blaming men and excusing women, because we are so pro-women over men; The biggest irony of Western Feminism.
Layla Stepford08 July 2017
Virginity is seen as this sacred thing because it is - for men and women (but more for women). For women: It’s the moment you decide to choose to give a man the most intimate gift that you can possibly give him. Most men take it as a huge compliment – asshole men take it as “notches on the belt” – because they know how big of deal it is and like I said, good men respect when women wait; They don’t look down on them for it because they see it as the way she values herself and her body etc. For men: It’s the moment a woman has finally given you the respect and trust that is usually (used to be) reserved for quality “men”. Most women take it as a negative sign if he hasn’t had sex yet, like maybe he’s not so great if women haven’t already “validated” him - slutty women take it as “notches on the belt” too, they’re just more rare than their male counterparts - and the guys who have the most women offering him sex (or attention), seem to then accumulate even more female offers as it grows exponentially. It’s also part of nature. Men have always been the pursuers and until they can “successfully” pursue a woman, they often feel like unworthy losers. Women have always been the “gate-keepers” and had the benefit of getting to deem which men are “worthy” of such intimacy; Until the sexual Feminist revolution where now women are more likely to feel like unworthy losers if they aren’t having sex, and men get to expect it now that so many women engage in it in a looser manner. I’ve never really heard of anyone associating it with being a good or bad person (except maybe in religion) and that is definitely an extreme way to take that (for anyone who does). However, it is a huge choice that a woman makes and I think it’s better when men and women respect the value of that choice and the transition it has, primarily on women. While I don’t believe it “makes you a woman” just because you’ve done it, it does change your entire perspective and the way you view things – particularly men and romance, etc. So I see it almost as big a choice as having children for women (and the two are connected, though I don’t agree ready for sex has to equal ready for kids). It’s a life-changing decision that does leave an impact – whether good or bad or indifferent. So I think it’s empowering to let women know that so they can do everything they can to make sure that impact is as positive as possible. When women lose their virginities in regretful ways, they’re more likely to have negative views and relationships with men; whereas when they lose it to their nice boyfriend who took his time and made sure she was ok and didn’t break up with her afterwards, etc. they tend to have more positive views and relationships with men. Of course this is not always, just most likely. Thank you for the compliment, I feel the same and enjoy discussing with you. :) I don’t know if I’ve ever asked you this before, but what are your thoughts on legalizing prostitution and/or polygamy for consenting adults only? (You can pick an appropriate age limit for this hypothetical question.)
Zarina Macha09 July 2017
I don't think we really have Lifetime in the UK, though I've heard via researching online that it's kinda shit. I love Disney movies but personally I love the more sassy independent women - Belle, Esmeralda, Mulan, Elsa and Anna, Pocahontas - that care for and respect men but are also comfortable with themselves and have ambitions as opposed to just waiting for a man (Belle is a good example of this). This brings me back to a point I made earlier; I think men and women should respect each other and peacefully coexist, but I do think it's dangerous to rely on a 'man for everything' because I feel like it takes away some of your personal identity. Same with relying on anyone for anything. I guess I'm pretty self-reliant, just the way I've always been. I think Cinderella and Snow White are a bit lame and wet (although I still enjoy the movies) but that's just down to opinion. I acc have a post planned on Disney females that I'll post another time. I've never really been a 'traditional values' kind of person so I guess that's where you and I differ. I don't think virginity should be a measure of your value whether you're a man or woman. I think it's about choice and it's true that emotionally it's nicer to lose it to someone who really cares about you, but unfortunately that doesn't always happen. I also think 'waiting till marriage' is a bad idea because sex is a big part of a relationship and you need to see that you're both sexually compatible. Like when you get married it doesn't matter how many sexual partners you had before, the fact is you're both together and love each other and (hopefully) respect each other and will (again hopefully) live a long and happy marriage. I believe in sex-positivity so I think it doesn't matter how many or little people you have sex with, that's your choice and it shouldn't be a measure of value. I've always been in favour of legalising prostitution (18+, same as everything else) and I absolutely think consenting adults should be allowed to marry into polygamous relationships if all parties are happy with it. I have no problem with what people want to do with their genitals. Personally I don't think I'd ever want to be in a polygamous relationship, but if other people do it's not my place to tell em not to. And yep I agree men's issues should be taken more seriously as well, like there are so many domestic abuse shelters for women but hardly any for men (as said in the Red Pill documentary) so yeah I'm all in favour of that.
Layla Stepford10 July 2017
When Lifetime was going through their male-bashing phase, the movies were outrageous. I remember one film where this guy seemed really charming and like a gentleman, until he got engaged to his gf. Then it was revealed that he was actually a kidnapper who was only pretending to be in love with the gf to get revenge at her mother, because he and his previous gf had tried to kidnap the mom for money but the mom got away and the previous gf accidentally died, so he blamed her for it and was using her daughter to get to her. That was one of their more complicated ones but the basis was the same: you think the guy’s great but in reality, he’s a bad guy and you just couldn’t tell the whole time. Whether it was a gentleman husband turned wife-beater or popular male friend turned rapists, etc. It went a long way to make women fear men and relationships with them. (That being said, their newer movies in the last 20 years that are more "based on true events" are actually usually pretty good and well done.) I grew up on Disney movies, they were one of the very few positive things in my childhood that had such positive messages. I think it’s really biased when women’s “ambitions” are belittled if they involve “just” being a wife and mother. I don’t even know what that’s supposed to mean. Is the assumption that if a woman wants to primarily be a wife and/or mother, that’s all she’s limited to? Like if a woman is waiting for love in her life, then suddenly that makes her one-dimensional? If someone rejects love and only wants to focus on their one main hobby, such as Merida for example, how is that seen as more liberating and not limiting? I’m not really sure what you mean by “the more sassy independent women - Belle, Esmeralda, Mulan, Elsa and Anna, Pocahontas”. Esmeralda is definitely sassy but the rest of the ones you mentioned aren’t really “sassy”. What does “independent” mean to you? Why would being more open to love or less open to love, have anything to do with “independence”? For example, Belle was not independent as her life revolved around taking care of her father. She actually had more freedom to be her own person when she chose to be with the Beast rather than when she was with her father. Since she had to take care of her father, she couldn’t travel or explore or live out her dreams. It wasn’t until she let go of her father, chose independence through “love” that she was really able to finally go pursue her own dreams. Also, you do realize that Belle was waiting for love too, right? In the beginning of the film, when she is talking to her father before he goes on his trip and goes missing, she tells him about how lonely she is and he tries to recommend Gaston to her. She rejects the idea of Gaston because she cares about the kind of person he is inside, not just his looks and status. Nonetheless, she is still looking for love too though, and she clearly feels “trapped” in her life with her father as she sings “I want much more than this provincial life”.
Layla Stepford10 July 2017
I don’t understand this idea that if you’re in a relationship or marriage and not working, that you’re suddenly “reliant on him for everything”. Marriages (done right) are partnerships, both people work together and they get the benefit of each other’s strengths to cover their own weaknesses. Together, they make a better team than when they are alone and bring out the best in each other. If you have a job, you’re still reliant on many people, if not more than just being in a relationship. You are completely reliant on everyone else: the boss, and the decisions they make for the company; your fellow employees, and their sense of teamwork, productivity and compatibility; your customers, and their desire to purchase your product enough as well as approve of your job in order for you to keep your job; etc. As a housewife or stay-at-home mother, you are only really reliant on yourself and your husband. We live in society so we are all reliant on each other. As far as independence, if you are an adult and legally responsible for yourself and no longer living off of your parents’ money, how are you not independent, regardless of relationship or work status? Also, are you still “independent” if you’re on welfare or unemployment? Because at that point, you are completely dependent on the government and all of the tax payers in your country in order to survive. So would you say people on government-financial assistance are not independent? Because my situation at home was so bad, I did everything I could to move out on my own – age 19 - and be “independent” as soon as possible (I even lived in my car for a few months). While I was able to make ends meet on my own, I do not feel that I was more “independent” at that point in my life, than I am now. Quite frankly, I grew up pretty independent because my mom was often out getting drunk or at home sleeping or watching TV with a hangover. I had to fend for myself A LOT as well as for my younger siblings. Now I am older, wiser, more secure in my life and more confident in myself – yet I have a husband who I am technically financially “dependent” on. If something were to happen and my husband died or if we even got divorced, I would be emotionally devastated of course, but I would still walk away a better person than when I was “independent” before we were together. So how would me being “independent” instead of with my husband be more “empowering” for me? It may be “empowering” to be alone by Feminist standards but I don’t see how that should be held up as some virtue. Some people stay single, some are fortunate and find their love. Why should that have any bearing on “independence” unless for tax reasons?
Layla Stepford10 July 2017
I would highly recommend you re-watching the old princess films before you write a post on them. Too often I see so many articles (albeit usually Feminist) that bash the Disney princess films based on nothing but their feelings and stereotypes about the characters that are sometimes even *disproved* in the film itself. This is especially true for the older ones. I don’t think Snow White and Cinderella are lame at all, I think they are some of the best role models that Disney has ever made and they personally helped me deal with my abuse when I was growing up. They were so strong, resilient and optimistic, never letting the abuse get to them and corrupt their positive spirits. I think it’s a real shame that Feminists have pushed myths about them being doormats etc. Snow White was incredibly spunky and immediately starts to boss the dwarves around and get things done. She cooks, cleans, does laundry and isn’t afraid to do her part because she wasn’t spoiled. She didn’t just expect to be taken in because she was a princess, she was willing to earn her keep. She was almost killed yet she found a way to bounce back and keep moving forward. I really don’t see anything lame about that. Same with Cinderella. She used her free time to save the mice from being eaten by the evil cat. She had a caring heart and tried to see the good in everyone – even when it wasn’t really there. When someone is constantly berated or neglected, is it really so awful that they might dream of someone who actually loves them and would treat them right for a change? Would it really be more empowering if they’d rather be alone forever than if they still believed in true love even after being shown the opposite? Are those not positive messages about good prevailing over evil? And by the way, Cinderella was able to free herself from the tower because she was clever enough in a very distraught situation to think of alerting the dog to come and get the cat who was trapping the mice. When compared to all of the other princesses, Cinderella is actually one of the more intelligent ones. I used to watch these films over and over as a child. (I wasn’t able to always get out so much, especially before high school, because my mom usually wouldn’t drive/take me anywhere.) So again, I would *highly* recommend you watch these movies before posting about them so you have a recent, accurate memory of them. Just because the earlier princesses were more reserved in their actions and weren’t so rebellious and outspoken, doesn’t make them any less “independent” or have weaker characters. In fact, one of the things that I like about them is that they weren’t spoiled and they didn’t take things for granted as much as a lot of the sassier ones did. (By the way, Belle, Pocahontas & Cinderella have always been my favorites since I was a little girl and I really loved Anna too. I like the princesses that have spunk and intelligence. :D)
Layla Stepford10 July 2017
I have what I like to call progressive-traditional values. Haha My most treasured traditional value is: children first. That’s what causes me to lean more conservative when it comes to family values though it’s not limited to that. I support gay adoption (progressive) because statistically 2 parents are better than 1 (traditional). I also support polygamy for consenting adults (progressive) because I believe extra/extended family members is better than broken, segregated family members etc (traditional). I usually balance out to being pretty moderate with slight leanings left and right depending on the topic. I don't think virginity should be a measure of your value whether you're a man or woman, either. I think we agree on the choice and impact but just disagree on the value of that choice. It is unfortunate when girls don’t get to lose it to the “right” guys but that’s why I’d rather do what I can to help girls in the future not be so unfortunate. We don’t have to try and force them to wait until marriage like before Feminism, I’m not saying that, but we shouldn’t downplay it, because it often leaves a bigger impact than the girl expected it to because they do underrate it more today. It’s a special thing women have and I don’t think that should be taken away from them to serve a Feminist doctrine. I think if someone wants to wait until marriage to have sex, I respect their choice as much as someone who refuses to do any kind of drugs, drink or smoke etc. Their choices may or may not align with my choices, but either way, I can respect their choices and their intent etc. Everyone is entitled to their own choices. As I said before, most women don’t care about the amount of sexual partners their men have had but most men do care about the amount of sexual partners their women have had. Just like most men don’t care about the physical attractiveness of their partner’s exes but most women do care about the physical attractiveness of their partner’s exes. On the reverse, just as many women rate themselves on the beauty of their partner’s exes etc., as many men rate themselves on the amount of “sexual” exes their partner has had. Not all men and women fall in line with these but in general, most do. I don’t really know what “sex-positivity” is but I tend to favor quality over quantity. I’ve known young women who have bragged about sleeping with 20+ men. I don’t know how they do it. I don’t really see that as empowering. I don’t think that letting tons of different guys into your intimate space is liberating but I don’t think I should be able to legally tell you what to do with your body. I’ll advise you because I care, but I believe most adults are independent and should be free to make their own choices. That being said, if you choose not to hang out with someone who is religious because she is always talking about how it’s “sinful” not to wait etc.; Would that be any different than choosing not to hang out with someone who is “slutty” because she is always talking about how much of a “prude” you are? I think people are different and we shouldn’t have to all be forced to have the same preferences etc. I don’t want to lose our diversity, I think it’s part of what makes us greater overall. So if a woman thinks sleeping with tons of men is liberating, that’s her prerogative. I would only tell her that most men don’t really respect that so she might want to keep that in mind when she wants to find her own long-lasting love. Isn’t it empowering for her to know ahead of time so she's not shocked later when it happens? That’s what I believe.
Layla Stepford10 July 2017
I am happy to hear that you are in favor of legalized prostitution, I am as well. I think that is one of the greatest points against Feminism, as they claim to fight for women’s “choice” yet they usually advocate against legalizing prostitution (and polygamy). I like the idea of adults having freedom of choice too. That being said, along with this freedom of choice, I equally believe in accountability for said choices. One of the things I saw most with people around me growing up, as well as with most Feminists, is a lack of accountability for one’s own actions aka victim mentality. I believe in a lot of liberties as a consenting adult such as legalized alcohol, marijuana, drugs, prostitution, polygamy, gambling, etc. This doesn’t mean I agree with these things, but I do believe they are someone’s own choices. That being said, I don’t want to have to pay for their choices. If someone loses their money gambling, I don’t want my tax money to go to their “welfare” check. If a polygamous family can’t afford the multiple kids they keep having, I don’t want my tax money to endorse their irresponsibility. I believe that is a fair balance, freedom of choice for promise of accountability. Well since you agree with men’s issues, I would just ask that when you look at a situation involving a man and a woman, don’t forget to look at both sides. Our society is very biased towards women so it’s very natural for us to give women the benefit of the doubt – even involuntarily - and not think twice about how a woman might be lying or how a man might be mistaken or misunderstood etc. This is why I don’t support Feminism and call myself a humanist/egalitarian instead.
Zarina Macha10 July 2017
I do watch the Disney movies quite regularly. I see what you mean about Snow White looking after the dwarves and Cinderella being kind to the animals, I guess I just prefer women with more attitude or 'spunk' as you say, and Cinderella and Aurora are a bit too 'soft' for me. My favourite is Esmeralda for that reason because she stands up for the gypsies and for Quasimodo, and she doesn't make finding a man her 'number one priority' but works well romantically with Phoebus (who is my favourite Disney guy). I also love Mulan because she is full of courage and goes out to help her father and her family and defend her country. (I'm no nationalist, but in the context of the film what she does is very noble). For the same reasons I think one of the worst is Ariel, although I do think she's lovely (and we both have red hair) and adore The Little Mermaid as I do every Disney film. However, telling little girls that if they give away their voice and rely on their looks that they'll get their 'dream man' who they've literally known for 5 minutes is not a positive message in my books. I like the fact that Frozen jokes about this with the 'you can't marry a man you just met' line from Elsa. Belle is another one of my favourites. I think she's smart, down to earth and cares for her father and then looks after the beast and brings out the best in him. Also, Belle doesn't specify 'love' in the romantic sense, more that she wants someone she can talk to who understands her. When I think of independence I do think of not making finding a man your number one priority in life. This is because growing up I've always felt like I need a guy's attention to make me feel good about myself. I think this is really unhealthy and that love should come from within first. Absolutely wanting love in life is healthy and normal, I just don't think women should spend their lives pining around waiting for someone like I did in my teens; it's better to just live your life and then you'll naturally meet the right person. I think Disney films, chick-lit and rom-coms have all fed into this 'girl meets boy' story and I've found it tiresome and even upsetting. That's why my favourite Disney girls are the ones that do great things and find men in the end without 'dreaming' about it primarily. Jenna Marbles once made this funny youtube video talking about Disney princesses and what if Cinderella tried to get her own back on her stepmother and step-sisters and ran away, rather than meets a Prince she danced with once and lives happily ever after? Same with Snow White; 'some day my prince will come.' Yes it's natural to pine but not when the primary message of a movie is the prince will get you and you'll live happily ever after because real life is not like that. I don't know much about relationships but I know they take time and work and that people can't marry each other within 5 mins of knowing each other and expect it to last unless it's an arranged marriage. It is true that our society has more female-bias and I think I've internalized that. We're told that women are the ones being oppressed when actually I don't think anyone in the UK and US are 'oppressed' nowadays (that's such a strong word to use!) and if anything women are given privileges that men don't have. My boyfriend's friend even said that if a girl is studying Engineering at uni, they can copy answers off the guys because there are few girls in that field and the guys will pander to them and help them out just because they're women. I think it's both low and clever that some women would manipulate weak-willed men like that to their advantage but I can't say I find it surprising.
Zarina Macha10 July 2017
Man you write so much (but it's very interesting) and I want to respond to it all but tryna be as concise as I can lol. Yeah it sounds like you've been through a lot and I have as well as you've read. I think at the end of the day if being a housewife and mother makes you feel happy and fulfilled that's good, but it doesn't for everyone and so as we both agree, choice is always important. I don't think having sex with 20+ people is bad or good; tbh I don't really care. Sex-positivity is basically looking at sexuality as down to individual choice and freedom and not virgin/slut shaming people.
Layla Stepford11 July 2017
When I find other people who are open-minded and curious, I like to dive into the subjects and really converse about them. It’s not about an argument to me, like my side vs your side, it’s just about exploring all of the different perspectives and contextual facts related to the topic, to understand and see it as fully as possible. I know you consider yourself a thinker so I don’t hold back with you and try to allow the conversation to flow as much as possible. If it’s too much, I can scale back for you; I am just used to conversing with others who also like to “dive” into the subjects etc. As far as my end, you can never write too much for me and I will always look forward to reading your full opinions.:) I also appreciate diversity of opinion, like what you and I are having here. I want to hear your unfiltered opinions, give you my own and let’s talk it all out and see if our own puzzle pieces don’t fit together in some way to create a larger picture. Most people’s opinions are formed on their own experiences, (personal and informational) and since we all have different experiences, I enjoy hearing them and how they differ from my own; etc. As long as people are always open-minded and open to discuss, I think there’s a lot of potential to learn and grow; regardless of “sides” or “disagreements” etc. In my opinion, true friends are the ones who can openly disagree without it affecting their friendship. I know some other people believe the reverse, that true friends don’t disagree or something like that but I don’t. As a child, I did go through a lot more things than many people go through as adults. A lot of people in my family did, as negative cycles tend to breed more negativity. This is why I do not like the “victim mentality”, rejecting accountability or being oversensitive to obstacles in life. I believe that ever since society started to put so much emphasis on feelings about things, we have gotten emotionally weaker. If we consider being manipulated into sex as being “rape”, then why don’t we consider car salesmen who manipulate customers into bad deals as “thieves”? If being talked into doing something you didn’t really want to do, is considered to be “traumatic” rather than just a “hard lesson learned”, how would we ever be emotionally strong enough to handle “more traumatizing” situations? Furthermore, when people embrace/encourage a victim mentality, it also makes them far less likely to choose better decisions for themselves – keeping them trapped in the negative cycle longer. (Going back to my argument against Feminism as it’s all based on victim mentality, which I believe holds women back more than it empowers them.)
Layla Stepford11 July 2017
According to what you explained as “sex-positivity”, I wouldn’t say that I blanketly agree with that. My balance is this: if a woman wants to be a slut and contribute to society by helping a ton of single men get their sexual releases, that’s her choice and I won’t put her down for it, even though I wouldn’t want that for myself or my daughter etc. I wouldn’t go out of my way to make any woman feel bad about her sex life but personally, I just wouldn’t really want to be around her or have her around my family just as most other women wouldn’t, as it’s an evolutionary thing of learning not to trust these women for their potential to break up families etc. When women’s sex lives aren’t just their own choices affecting themselves but choices that are bad for society, such as trying to go after married men or having kids with a ton of different men, that is where I draw the line of deeming it completely appropriate and even necessary to “slut-shame”. My mother, my grandmother & my stepmother (dad’s gf) all have 4 children from 3 different men. Since I personally know these women, I find it personally offensive if anyone tries to tell me that I shouldn’t have the right to slut-shame them (not saying you are). As with most things in life, I prefer to take people and situations based on their own merits. I don’t like extreme sayings/”rules” like “never slut-shame” or “never hit a woman” (what if she is trying to kill your child or beating her own?) or “never talk politics with friends” etc. I just think that to think in such absolutes all the time is so limiting. Rarely in life do we ever find things that are so black-and-white; yes-or-no; good-or-bad, right-or-wrong etc; Not everything is that simply answered or explained. I wouldn’t say “attitude” and “spunk” are synonyms as “attitude” can be sassy whereas “spunk” is more of an energetic, courageous and determined thing. Hence why Snow White is one of the spunkiest princesses, along with Anna. I don’t agree with you that Cinderella and Aurora are “soft” though “soft” is very subjective. I think Cinderella and Aurora were very strong and I don’t see their “traditionally feminine” qualities as taking away from that. If you’re into the Disney Princesses, I would like to recommend this post for you: "Ranked:Disney Princesses From Least To Most Feminist" Response - (http://waltdisneyinspiredlady.blogspot.com/2017/05/rankeddisney-princesses-from-least-to.html) If The Little Mermaid were actually “telling little girls that if they give away their voice and rely on their looks that they'll get their 'dream man' who they've literally known for 5 minutes” then I would agree with you that is not a positive message, however I disagree with you on the message here: Ariel was ready to move on from being held back by her father’s fear and prejudice, albeit somewhat “reasonable” considering what happened to his wife. Her dreams of being human were what she really wanted, and Eric was just a cherry on top. She wasn’t just relying on her looks, she was relying on their natural chemistry. Many times great changes do come with sacrifices, but too many people are afraid of making those sacrifices because they don’t actually believe that what they can attain in place of those losses will be better. Ariel did, she was very “independent” against all odds and forged her own path. She made her dreams happen, being human, and she got to get a great guy on top of it. I don’t think the deal was so illogical though it was naïve and impulsive – which is why I love Ariel but she’s not one of my favorites. Another post: Disney Princess Analysis: “Ariel just left her family for some guy she barely knew.” - (http://waltdisneyinspiredlady.blogspot.Disney com/2015/11/disney-princess-analysis-ariel-just.html)
Layla Stepford11 July 2017
Belle has always been my #1 favorite, pretty much my whole life. Haha :D The thing about her comment to her father is, her father asks "What about Gaston? He's a handsome fella." (Because he understood she meant love.) Belle doesn't say "I'm not looking for a relationship or love." She says "He's handsome, all right, and rude and conceited and... Papa he's not for me." This shows that she is open to love and she does want someone to love and talk to but she hasn't met the right man yet and doesn't want to settle. Another post: Disney Princess Analysis: Getting To Know Belle (http://waltdisneyinspiredlady.blogspot.com/2016/11/disney-princess-analysis-getting-to.html) Why is making finding a career your #1 priority in life any more independent than creating a new family as your #1 priority in life? If we accept that not all women want families and not all women want to work, what makes one more independent over the other? What happens when you spend your teen years pining for the perfect job, expecting that you are going to have a super important career that helps save the world, and it doesn’t happen; And you get stuck being some waitress at a diner or a cashier at a clothes store? Some women get depressed when their dreams aren’t realized – whether in career or romance. Is that healthy and normal? I just think it’s really biased to keep putting one “over” the other, implying a “better/more fulfilling” option rather than “next” to it as another equal option and it hurts women by pressuring them into making the “right” choice rather than choosing what they truly want for themselves (whatever it may be). If a woman is very smart and talented and capable of being a great doctor etc., I think it would be just as wrong to discourage her or tell her that being a wife would be more fulfilling; Because I really do think it’s a personal choice for each woman to make. I agree that romantic comedies have similar happy endings to Disney fairy tales however the Princess movies are based on fairy tales which are supposed to be allegorical. The romantic comedies are more like common fantasies on screen. I find modern romantic comedies to be more unrealistic than Disney princess movies as the former are based on placating to women’s feelings for money, whereas the latter are more based on timeless fairytales that have moral points. Under your criteria of “Disney girls that do great things and find men in the end without 'dreaming' about it primarily”, I would say that the majority of the princesses match this. I think people don’t understand the historical context of Snow White or Cinderella’s time. Many people act like they could’ve just ran away and started over but in their time, that would’ve been much harder than it is today and they likely would’ve died on the street, been raped or sold into slavery or otherwise been worse off trying to go out on their own. The world wasn’t always so nice and safe, we’ve only had electricity in most homes in America for less than 100 years and indoor plumbing for slightly more than that. (More reasons why gender roles prevailed more so pre-Feminism than post-Feminism without so many modern inventions and technological progress etc.)
Layla Stepford11 July 2017
I don’t really know what movie you are talking about where the primary message is “the prince will get you and you'll live happily ever after”. As I said before, real life was really like that when those movies came out in 1937 and 1950 (Snow White & Cinderella). Since the vast majority of women did get married in those times, it wasn’t “unrealistic” at all to show girls getting a happy ending. Furthermore, there is always talk about women’s portrayal yet not the men’s. The first 2 princes didn’t even have names. They’re all handsome, tall and have a masculine-build. How many movies do we have portraying men as rich, tall and powerful even though in real life, most men are not that rich, tall and powerful? That’s what movies are, unrealistic portrayals that entertain us by appealing usually to our emotions – desire, fear, ambition, etc. (Though there are a few movies out there that are made to make you think, though they’re usually not “mainstream”.) I don’t really understand why people expect cartoons for children to go into the nuance of relationships and dating etc. Most of them don’t focus on love though they hold up love as a value, as most kids watching the films would see their parents in love just as the prince and princess were, and would want the same thing for themselves. I don’t see the harm in that at all. The primary values are usually focused on having integrity and a good character. (good overcoming evil) If you think “it's both low and clever that some women would manipulate weak-willed men like that to their advantage but I can't say I find it surprising”, wouldn’t you then think the same think in reverse about men who manipulate women to their advantages?
Layla Stepford11 July 2017
If you think “it's both low and clever that some women would manipulate weak-willed men like that to their advantage but I can't say I find it surprising”, wouldn’t you then think the same thing* in reverse about men who manipulate women to their advantages? *typo, sorry
Zarina Macha12 July 2017
I think because I've been brought up in an environment where achieving and doing well in school and aiming for a career have been encouraged, I've gotten used to that. I have mixed feelings about school (esp primary and sixth form) but my secondary school and sixth form were very big on achieving, particularly my secondary school. They pushed the idea of doing well and reaching for the stars and a fulfilling career. In years 10 and 11 this financial company called Moodys came in to encourage young girls to pursue STEM subjects. (Being pro-arts I've never liked the fact that in school sciences always seem to be emphasised more than arts and arts are more frowned upon. Just my experience). With this in mind and also the fact that both my parents have always worked I've never thought not having a career could be fulfilling. However, I've come to realise that isn't true of course so yes I do agree with you that it's down to personal choice. If one woman (or man) finds staying at home with the children whilst their partner works fulfilling, then good on them. All my life I've heard people tell me there's no future in the arts; in music and writing the two things that I love. But I would not feel fulfilled working in a bank or an office or as a doctor. Fulfilment does come down to a person-to-person basis so I agree with you. Yeah I guess again this changes my perception of the Disney princesses. I think I always found the happily-ever-after thing upsetting and annoying in my teens because I think it sells this false idea that true love can happen within 5 minutes and always makes it the primary focus of the movie. (I forgot about Jasmine; she was my fav princess growing up btw). This is why I love Moana and rate Merida; I think it changes it up and makes the storyline more interesting rather then 'they lived happily ever after.' Maybe I'm just a pessimist. I've never really cared for love songs either. I don't like the emphasis on romantic love as being the 'best' kind of love; Moana loves her family and where she comes from, Elsa and Anna love each other, Merida loves her mother etc. So I'm very happy that Disney are exploring other forms of love and different storylines. But yes it's true that we have to look at things in context and in the 1950s girls grew up and got married and weren't able to have the option of pursuing a career or finding their own life path. I don't think its healthy to define yourself through somebody else. Again maybe I'm just pessimistic and self-reliant. I've always struggled to relate to people and have felt very alone most of my life, despite having friends and family who love me. But then lots of people feel like that. So the 'true love conquers all' message just depressed me. Yeah of course its just as bad when men manipulate women to their advantages. Typically women manipulate men for money and men manipulate women for sex, but underlying these are forms of power and control.
Layla Stepford12 July 2017
I suppose in some ways I was lucky as I got to see both growing up. On my father’s side, he worked a lot and his gf stayed home raising the children – who were involved in a lot of sports and cheerleading kind of activities etc. My father worked overtime and probably spent more hours at work than he did at home or just about. He wanted to be more involved with his kids and he tried to go to as many games etc. as possible, even going as far as to work night-shift (in the middle of the night) so he could be there to support them. He’s a real work horse but he does it to provide for the big family he has. If he could get away with working less, spending more time with the family BBQing or going to the movies or watching football games together etc, he’d be a lot happier. I admire his work ethic because despite the stretch of his paycheck, he’s never been homeless nor gotten financial aid from the government and he’s even paid my mom some child support along with all of his other financial commitments in his life. However, I also see him slaving his life away at his job and being very underappreciated by those in his family who choose to see his absence and stress levels more than his commitment and dedication. (It’s interesting how we hold up women for wanting to work yet we don’t do the same for men – especially those working to support a family.) Luckily for my father, his gf staying home was a good counter-balance to his having to work all of the time to make ends meet. Since he had to be gone working, she was home to take kids to and from school and practice etc, make them breakfast and dinner every day, take them out to the park on the weekends and overall just being there for them. They didn’t have to fend for themselves, they were loved and taken care of and they knew it. *Post-Script: Later when my father’s gf was done using him for his money to raise her kids, she started working while still with him so she could save up to move out on her own. All of those years staying home with him didn’t stop her from being able to leave when she wanted, nor did her relationship with him stop her from being able to get a job when she wanted. So not only did “relying on him” not hurt her, it helped her and hurt him. On my mother’s side, she was a single mom who worked and raised us by herself. Even though my mom wasn’t feminine and very slutty, she was also very lonely and had she been capable of it, seemed to really want marriage and a happy family. She even once told me, after I was already an adult, that she had regretted not just getting married to a good man and “not have to worry about money all the time”. Unfortunately for her, she was too self-destructive to make that dream a reality, so working was what she was stuck with. She also was really horrible when it came to priorities with money. She was constantly spending money on luxuries over necessities, getting evicted and was on welfare as well as unemployment at different times etc. Had she been “financially dependent” on a man, she probably wouldn’t be as deep in debt as she is and would have someone there to help keep her accountable for her bad spending – as well as taken less taxpayer money just to blow most of it off. As a single mother, she had no counter-balance to her weaknesses. As her eldest child, I had to take that role; playing father to her and mother to my siblings.
Layla Stepford12 July 2017
So I was lucky because I got to see that sometimes things don’t work out for a reason and not everyone is made to have the same life. This is why I think these kinds of personal choices shouldn’t be so politicized as with the way Feminism does it as well as mainstream media. (And again, why I try to push for advocacy of children over grown adults.) I know better than most people that not all women are meant to be mothers and not all men want to slave their entire lives away at work. However, I don’t think “changing the gender roles” or associating higher value with one over another is a healthy way to look at these things in general. I think what’s fulfilling is “diversity”. We’re not a homogenous society with everyone having the same 1 job and/or purpose in life. Our different skills and preference “make the world go round”. Just like our bodies have different parts (head, finger, heart, skin, muscle, etc), so people in our society make up different parts (scientist, politician, parent, fire fighter, athlete, etc). I just wish people were more encouraged to do whatever they wanted, rather than conforming to some political or Feminist doctrine. Fulfilling means finding your own purpose, not someone else’s, in my opinion. Honestly, I think anti-Disney princess propaganda sells the false idea that “true love can happen within 5 minutes and always makes it the primary focus of the movie” more than the actual Disney princess movies themselves. As I said before, the Disney Princess movies sell the idea that moral character and choosing to be a good person will always get you through the toughest situations and not to lose hope. Snow White is arguably the most optimistic princess and when did she come out? During the Great Depression in USA when people wanted something to lift their spirits. And as far as finding “true love”, considering most people came from married parents, what else should they have called it instead? “Convenient love”? “Primal chemistry”? I think “true love” was a very sweet and positive way to label the romance and it was very symbolic of “marriage” – since marriage is committing to one person for the rest of your life; your “true love”. And again, until the last few decades, most people watching the Disney films came from happily married homes so it wasn’t as controversial as with today, where 45% of kids are being born to single-moms (in the US). I liked Moana because I thought she had a good balance, I didn’t like her any more/less because she didn’t have a romantic storyline. I liked Merida’s growth but I didn’t really like the message of her film and I think it encouraged self-centeredness and unrealistic expectations a bit too much. I like the emphasis of romantic love as the “best” kind of love because it’s a whole-encompassing love that you get to choose. When you find romantic love, you get a spouse and someone to create a life and family with. Your spouse is the start of your new family, the one in the 2nd half of your life that you chose; as opposed to the one you were born with in the 1st half of your life without any choice in the matter. Perhaps for someone like me, who was born in a bad situation, with a lot of bad people close to me in my family, and have made it out and found my husband, I can appreciate this sentiment more. I have to say though, I don’t think that the 2nd family has to replace the 1st family, as shown in Sleeping Beauty when Aurora finally got both for the first time at the end; or when Belle brought her father to the castle at the end of Beauty and the Beast; or the Sultan finally caved and changed the law so Jasmine could get married in Aladdin etc. Even though Pocahontas was always my 2nd favorite princess growing up, I was always a little upset that they “took away her happy ending” and she had to give up her love to stay with the family that had wanted to make her marry Kocoum – especially considering it was her romantic love that potentially gave his life to save her family.
Layla Stepford12 July 2017
That being said, I don’t mind Disney exploring other forms of love and different storylines. Though to be fair, the “traditional and stereotypical beautiful princess falling for the handsome prince and living happily ever after” hasn’t really been used since 1959 with Sleeping Beauty. Starting with Ariel, there was a lot of different changes and more family dynamics etc. Starting with Belle, there was a lot of change in the princes and break from their traditionally perfect characters as well. I don’t know why you would say that “in the 1950s girls grew up and got married and weren't able to have the option of pursuing a career or finding their own life path” as that’s simply not true and I have shown you proof of that. Those girls had the option to work just as their mothers had and their grandmothers etc. Most of them preferred to be housewives and I really wish you’d stop using the false statement that they “weren’t able to have the option of pursuing a career or finding their own life path” when there’s absolutely no proof of that. If it’s not healthy to define yourself through somebody else than what makes defining yourself as a “lawyer” any better than a “wife”? Somebody else defined what a “lawyer” is and what the requirements are that you have to meet in order to call yourself that. Just like someone else defined what a “wife” is and what the requirements are that you have to meet in order to call yourself that. Both of them are personal choices. What makes you think being a careerist is more self-reliant than being a wife? What happens when you work the same job for 12 years thinking you will work your way up in the company but you keep getting passed up for promotions while you watch your dreams slip away? Or you get “laid off” with the company because someone hire up made some big mistakes and now the company is failing? How is that any different than if something happens to your marriage and it happens to fall apart? Especially considering the fact that you have MORE choice when it comes to the kind of man you marry, then you do the kind of job you will end up with – which is based on a somewhat unpredictable market of always changing trends as well as personal compatibility with strangers? I understand that if you don’t have romantic love in your life and don’t feel too optimistic about it, how the “true love conquers all” message can be upsetting for you but if you did find someone who made you feel like you weren’t alone, really understood you and made you happy and wanted to be committed with you – would that be such an offensive thing? I think part of the problem might be that people have forgotten what “true love” and even just being “in love” really is. Meg was a good example of this. She had 1 (very) bad situation and it forever soured her on men, almost to the point of getting her “true love” killed when she finally did meet him. We can definitely focus on other forms of love and storylines etc. but I don’t think we should start spreading bitterness about “true love” as it can be more harmful than helpful. In addition, a lot of females tend to think they are “in love” when they have a deep crush or really like a guy; yet if you ask their crush if they are “in love” he will often say no, without hesitation. If you ask a female if you can be “in love” with someone even if they don’t feel the same way in return, they will often say “yes” whereas males often say “no”. The real answer of course, is no, in order to be “in love”, both parties have to feel the same way. So I think unrealistic beliefs about love are a bigger part of the problem than “true love” itself being so exalted. And another big part of the problem being that we don’t teach young women enough about the differences between them and young men and give them enough context to things regarding gender-differences (thanks to Feminism, of course). If females understood males better, there wouldn’t be able to be so much manipulation nor as much need for it.
Layla Stepford12 July 2017
“Yeah of course its just as bad when men manipulate women to their advantages. Typically women manipulate men for money and men manipulate women for sex, but underlying these are forms of power and control.” - So then in your opinion, what makes one “rape” or “needing government/police involvement” and not the other?
Zarina Macha12 July 2017
It seems your marriage is very happy and so has given you a positive outlook on romantic love. I think you're very lucky and am happy that it is that way for you. I do disagree that 'romantic love is the best kind of love' because I think you can have love with friendship, parents, siblings; like the love my brother and I have for each other is huge. Again because of the way you grew up I guess this is why you would view your marriage as freedom from your difficult child situation. I felt sad at the end of Pocahontas too, but then in the second movie she meets John Ralph and they go back to her home land so it shows love for family and love for a partner. With this last question I'm not sure how to answer it. I think if you feel you've been emotionally or physically abused you should report it.
Layla Stepford14 July 2017
Well, you can't love your friends, parents or siblings the same way you love your spouse. I guess you have to experience it to understand what I am talking about, but it's whole-encompassing in the way other loves can't be. That's the beauty and splendor of marriage and having children together, not just for me but for all people in happy marriages who want to have kids. I just think you should try to hold women to the same standards as men unless you're argument is that women aren't equal to men. If you keep giving women more passes than men, then it shows that you don't really think they're equal.
Zarina Macha20 July 2017
I do appreciate that being happily married to someone must be wonderful and is a different kind of love to platonic/family love. However, for someone who hasn't experienced that I don't think the loves I've had for other people account for any less (and I know you're not saying that). I'll also be writing other posts on stuff we've discussed here. And I agree women and men should be held to equal standards. I think it's easier to forget sometimes because society gives em different passes (it's bad for a husband to hit his wife but 'funny' if a wife hits her husband). It's also tricky because men and women are different, and 'equal' shouldn't mean exactly the same, so it's all about situations I guess.
Layla Stepford21 July 2017
Yes, I am just trying to make the point that romantic love (particularly in marriage) embodies platonic & family love as well, which is why I said it was "whole-encompassing". The best marriages are when you marry your best friend (platonic love) and when you have children together, you've really cemented becoming a family. When marriage is done right, it's supposed to be a trio of love - representing all types of love in your life. I look forward to reading more of your opinions on all of the stuff we've discussed here, including the love post. What you just said about: "men and women are different, and 'equal' shouldn't mean exactly the same, so it's all about situations" is exactly why Feminism fails so much as it rejects that principle and tries to say "gender is a social construct" and in reality "men and women are and should be exactly the same". (Unless it's a bad situation of course, for example Feminists never push for women to be "equally" represented in custodial or construction jobs etc.)
Dear Social Drinkers
24 July 2017
1 comment
Anonymous24 July 2017
Struggles yeah right
Body Image Shit
28 July 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford28 July 2017
Aside from the overall pessimism that "no one will ever be satisfied" which I disagree with, as I think there are many people out there who are content with who they are, I do agree with your overall concept of not letting body image things get to you. I think as long as someone is healthy, they really shouldn't worry about too much and focus more on their positives than negatives. Our looks are only 1 part of us and at one rate or another, they always eventually fade. An attractive personality can go a lot farther than attractive looks, especially with people who choose substance over superficiality.
Zarina Macha29 July 2017
Yeah I meant 'no one will ever be satisfied' in the sense that we'll always want more or want what we can't have, so the best thing is to just accept who you are now.
Layla Stepford30 July 2017
I know what you meant, I just don't agree. I know people who don't want more and are content with who they are. I think it was too much of a blanketed statement to assume that no one is content with who they are and that all people "always want more". Not all people are like that.
Trump's Trans Ban
31 July 2017
4 comments
Layla Stepford13 August 2017
It's not really like banning "women, mexicans, bisexual people" for many reasons. 1.) "Transgenders" are less than 1% of the US population. All those other groups (except bisexuals) make up a large amount of people. 2.) "Gender dysphoria" is recognized by professionals and in a US court of law as a mental illness. So it would be more like banning people who are bipolar or border personality disorder etc. 3.) The military is a place where you are stripped of your identity and completely conform to being just another soldier. That is just the way of "war". It's not the place for someone to find their identity and if they get any special treatment when it comes to housing or shower accommodations etc., this can serve to offend and upset the rest of the soldiers. 4.) What you said about the cost and burden of cost. "I don't think a person who is physically or emotionally crippled in any way should join the military." I agree. The vast majority of people are not cut out for the military. "BUT - I think if a person has already transitioned and is on hormones, and are physically and emotionally healthy, then there is nothing wrong with them joining the military." That's the problem with the word "transgender" though. At this point, they've become the gender they wanted to be. The "problem" should be "solved". No "gender dysphoria" anymore.
Zarina Macha13 August 2017
Exactly. I think the liberal outrage over this is tremendous. People don't get that most people are not trans. And it is so true that the military should not be a place to find your identity. What do you think about this trans bathroom issue? I don't really know to be honest. If you look and act like a girl and have female genitalia then yeah, use the girl's bathroom. But if you clearly look and act like a guy and claim to be a girl to use the female bathroom then it's like, well, how do we know you're not just lying to perve on girls, or going through some teen angst face? I support people's right to transition and having gender dysphoria must be awful, and of course trans people should just be treated with the same humanity as everyone else. But I don't like the fact that it's blown up into this huge big deal.
Layla Stepford16 August 2017
I just want to say in America, something like 23% of Americans have no religious affiliation yet we never talk about those people yet transgenders at the highest estimates only make up about 0.6% yet they get much more media attention. That should show people just how political and biased it is. I think businesses should be allowed to make whatever bathroom they want, as long as they have bathrooms that everyone can use. If that means 1 bathroom for all people, 2 bathrooms for each gender or 3 bathrooms for more options etc. then whatever. As long as taxpayers don't have to pay for it. I think that entire issue was such a waste of time and something made up to fill up TV air time. That being said, if a bathroom is allowing both genders then I think it should be made in single-stall styles so males and females won't have to occupy it at the same time. I do not like the idea of giving adult perverts/pedophiles an extra chance of indulging their fantasies in the bathrooms.
Layla Stepford08 October 2017
I think that since less than 1% of the US population is transgender, there shouldn't be a "bathroom issue". If people really want to construct bathrooms to appeal to less than 1% of the population, then I would advise them to create single-stall bathrooms - that way there's no worry about perverts taking advantage of the "bathroom issue".
Dealing with different points of view
01 August 2017
7 comments
Anonymous02 August 2017
Very true. We are social animals, and if we can't get along, bad things happen. To us as individuals, and to us as a society. It means being able to get along with people whose views you despise, and even whom you despise personally.
Layla Stepford08 August 2017
I agree with pretty much everything except I have one question: Are you saying that we should try to adjust ourselves more to each other and never really question or challenge each other? I really like the saying "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't force it to drink." I have experienced this a lot in my life and personally, I think one of the most powerful things you can do for another person is to "bring them to the water" so that they at least have the choice to drink. I think our society is too passive and too accommodating to everyone's feelings and it's a big part of why we are losing logic to emotion and reason to fantasy etc. When people are always praised and never criticized, it does a lot more damage long-term than it does help short-term. I've seen this over and over again. So I just hope you don't mean this in a way to "never bring a horse to water if you think it won't drink" because sometimes you might be surprised and do a lot of positive change by doing so. This was true in my life. Part of why I got out of my negative surrounding and upbringing is because there were a couple of people here and there who were willing to be honest with me and tell me what I needed to hear, rather than what they thought I wanted to hear etc. Those little nuggets of truth went a long way to helping me find my way through all of the chaos around me. It's why I try to do the same for others and tell what I know and think, even if it's not always politically correct etc. (It's the best way to learn - honesty.)
Zarina Macha08 August 2017
I think it depends on the person and the situation. If you're speaking to someone who you know won't change their mind whatever you say, then it's probably better to leave it alone. But if you're speaking to someone really open-minded, you have a better chance of offering them to drink the water.
Layla Stepford09 August 2017
How do you know (a) it won't plant a seed that will help them later in life or (b) that it absolutely won't or will change their mind?
Zarina Macha09 August 2017
I'm sure it will do either of those things, it's more about avoiding conflict, weighing up the situation and thinking about who you're talking to.
Layla Stepford13 August 2017
While patterns do exist more than most people would like to exist, this is actually one of those areas where I think it's worth it to take the chance that you might get an exception and not take anything for granted.
Layla Stepford13 August 2017
EDIT: more than most people would like to *admit* exist
Films are racist?
03 August 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford13 August 2017
"However, isn’t that just because there are more white people than any other racial demographic in America?" For the most part, yes. There are some preferences in viewership depending on audience etc. but most people never acknowledge the simple demographics of the population. "It’s like complaining that Bollywood films only cast Indian people." Exactly. "America is still a very racially segregated country and people care too much about the superficial issue of skin tone." I wouldn't say that America is "very racially segregated", that's more what media presents it to be but you are right that most Americans "care too much about the superficial issue of skin tone". Basically it's like this: 1. Rural areas are mostly in middle America, the "flyover states" and "Bible Belt" and "middle of nowhere" places. They are majority white. Examples: Boise, Idaho; Des Moines, Iowa; Nashville, Tennessee; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 2. Big cities are mostly mixed demographically, primarily the ones on coasts. They often have people from all over the world. Examples: Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; New York City, New York; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Houston, Texas. 3. Suburban areas are often majority white but usually have some Asian and other races though not as many as white. These places are more about economics than money and they more represent the demographics of the population except Asians are overrepresented in these regions. "I take no pride in stuff that I didn’t decide." We would definitely be better in the USA if people took this attitude more, as well as emphasized their own choices and accountability more.
Zarina Macha19 August 2017
Pretty much. By the way, have you seen Jungle Fever? It's a brilliant movie. Deals with race, family, class, gender, religion, addiction, poverty; pretty much everything in a couple hours. Spike Lee is a gee.
Layla Stepford24 August 2017
No, I haven't seen that film.
Why Communism is Terrible
06 August 2017
7 comments
A (Hopefully) Reasonable Person05 February 2020
I wrote response bet it was larger than the 4,096 character limit. I have placed it within a google doc. I have some issues with the piece and wished to share my side of the story. As a communist, I agree with much of what you said, including the critique of self-proclaimed communist nations. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rf342V-G1aAdVf73aBPtAH_Pd1rHN6E2xet7Yp0THbA/edit?usp=sharing
Zarina Macha08 February 2020
Ooh, thanks for the response! I will read through the google doc and let you know my thoughts as soon as I can.
Zarina Macha19 March 2020
Hello, if you had split your comment into three response boxes, it would have been fine to post here. I am going to post it here just because I found it really interesting, and it also means I can respond here while referring back to it. ***************************************************** I find your article most interesting. I have found some issues in your piece I would like to explore. Firstly, I would like to say I write with good intentions. I mean no harm. Rather, I wish to offer some corrections. I believe you have a lack of understanding of the principles of communism. The Cambridge Dictionary defines communism as "an economic system based on public ownership of property and control of the methods of production, and in which no person profits from the work of others". You claim communists support the idea of a state despite political anarchy being a large component of communist thought. Karl Marx stated: "The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeois" Marx was highly critical of the state and believed it was one of the sole reasons capitalism had stayed afloat. "The most perfect example of the modern State is North America. The modern French, English and American writers all express the opinion that the State exists only for the sake of private property, so that this fact has penetrated into the consciousness of the normal man." -The German Ideology (Karl Marx) "Masses of labourers, crowded into the factory, are organised like soldiers. As privates of the industrial army they are placed under the command of a perfect hierarchy of officers and sergeants. Not only are they slaves of the bourgeois class, and of the bourgeois State; they are daily and hourly enslaved by the machine, by the overlooker, and, above all, by the individual bourgeois manufacturer himself." -The Communist Manifesto Marx grouped the state with the bourgeois. The state and the appearance of relative democracy was the means by which the ruling classes could legitimize themselves the Proletariat. This brings us to the Soviet Union, China, and the other nations your critique is based upon. The critique of these states as anti-communist is as old as the Soviet Union. In a letter to a friend, Kropotkin wrote "Lenin is not comparable to any revolutionary figure in history. Revolutionaries have had ideals. Lenin has none. He is a madman, an immolator, wishful of burning, and slaughter, and sacrificing." Perhaps it was the critiques from the Libertarian left that had them purged from the state. The funeral of Peter Kropotkin was the last time the Soviet government permitted a gathering of these anarchists. Thousands mourned in the streets as the likes of Emma Goldman, Aron Baron and Alexander Berkman made great speeches. Berkman's account of Russia is most telling. His book, The Bolshevik Myth, explores how the Cheka had begun arresting anarchists, libertarian socialists, and others critical of the new regime. The book paints quite a picture of the union that would evolve into a near fascist state. Berkman would escape before Stalin's purges but many were not so lucky. Communism calls for the dissolution of the state. The "Communist" states failed to do so. Communism calls for economic and political equality through the removal of class systems and any other unjust hierarchy. The "Communist" states failed to do so. Communism calls for democratic election systems both for making policy and running factories/farms. The "Communist" states failed to do so. There is a reason Adolf Hitler was able to work with Joseph Stalin. There is a reason the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact managed to take place. Had the Soviets and Nazis had the opposite political stance, negotiations would have failed. They did not.
Zarina Macha19 March 2020
Nationalsozialismus (National Socialism) is an inherently totalitarian idea. Granting such economic power to the state places them above the people, the very problem anarchist communists oppose. The Soviets, Chinese, Koreans, Cubans, and Cambodians were all national socialists. Muammar Gaddafi dubbed his nation the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya. There was nothing socialist (besides national socialism) about his policy. His dictatorship was truly fascistic. Your article does recognize this. You yourself claim "Communism in full practice is fascism". You label capitalism of a lesser of two evils. I feel your article made legitimate points. I myself am a communist. I hate Stalin. I hate Mao. I hate Guevara. You are a capitalist. Capitalism comes in many forms. You support social democracy. I doubt you support Leopold style colonialism despite colonialism being a direct result of capitalism. I am an anarchist. I want peace. I want prosperity. I feel democratic means are the only means through which that may be achieved. Criticize states labelling themselves as communist. I support that. But don't group Tankies and Marxist-Leninists with democratic communists. Don't confuse right-wing dictators such as Hitler with the likes of Nestor Makhno. Makhno led millions of anarchists and communists in The Ukraine. Trotsky slaughtered thousands of the Makhnovshchyna. Hitler and Franco committed horrifying crimes against Revolutionary Catalonia. When regarding revolution, you state "I believe evolution is better than revolution, because all revolution is replacing one evil system with another". Capitalism was born from revolution. In France, the ashes of feudalism formed a new system. Capitalism's spread was violent. Leopold II committed genocide to gain wealth from ivory and rubber. The labour output of slaves caused the American Civil War. Capitalism leads to imperialism as governments clash to grow their economies. That militarism and imperialism caused the First World War. Today millions starve due to government and corporate greed and thousands die for oil in the Middle East. Because you did not clarify, I do have one question. Do you feel revolutions are problematic or do you dislike the ideas that motivated the Russian and Chinese revolutions? If an idea was born which was only achievable through revolution, would it be worth fighting for? I do wish revolution was unnecessary. If we could achieve the ideals I praise through peaceful evolution. However, such is not achievable. The game is rigged. If the rich control society, they control politics. In many western nations, all news is publicly owned by large corporations. The wealthy demonize their opposition and deify propagators of capitalism. They hold the power to deceive the public and force them to trust their lies. They use their enforces, police and the military to enforce their rule. Not all soldiers or cops are bad people but the institution is used in malicious ways to prop up the fat under-belly of the Bourgeois.
Zarina Macha19 March 2020
You also have criticisms of the communist economic structure. I see things differently. All humans are greedy. We want things. Food, clothes, a home, love, recognition, acceptance. That is what makes us human. The idea is that making the fruits of our labour into public provisions will permit that. Giving homes to the homeless, food to the hungry. Anarcho-egoism is a philosophy that wants the removal of all things that halt our expression and acceptance of our inner personality. Once the state is removed, people will need to organize. Cooperation is the way to win. People are to work according to their ability. Once work is done, the surplus is made public provisions. Public property. I will take according to my needs. Food. Clothes. A home. That is personal property. It is required for you to be you. All people get it. It is the reason for our labour. To each according to his ability, to each according to their needs. How do you get people to work without a profit motive? How can you motivate while keeping political and economic equality? We use the social environment. Those who work gain respect. Those who work meet friends. Those who work are treated kindly. Those who don't are subject to ridicule and condemnations. If it was legally permitted to walk about nude, would you? Most would answer with a "no". It is not socially acceptable to do so. The same would be in a communist society. You would work due to societal pressure. If the person is ill, the population would help them. If a person was depressed, the population would help them. If a person was lazy, the population would try to motivate them to work. If you did not need to wake up, would you ever? Would you stay asleep or bask in the sun alongside us? The more people work, the more public provisions we would have. And if all worked, work hours could be shorter. It would be profitable to show compassion. To help one another. The French Revolution promised equality, liberty, and fraternity. Their solution was capitalism. The fraternity, liberty, and equality lies left of where they looked. What would stop people from taking more than they needed? First, we need to ask why. Why would people take more than what they need? The answer is to flex. You might need transportation. You may need a car. What you don't need is a Lamborghini. The Lamborghini is how you boast. Far too much is spent on bragging and attitudinizing. With a communist society, extravagant spending would be frowned upon. In the modern capitalist world, we aspire to live the celebrity lifestyle. Being wealthy comes with clout. The opposite is true of communism. Society respects the one who takes little and keeps running, not the one who takes much to keep crawling. The two of us see eye to eye on many subjects. Free healthcare. Free education. Commodification has corrupted society and made these necessary elements subservient to the profit motive. You see issues in complete laissez-faire capitalism. I hope you see some of my points. I hope you recognize my ideas as a reasonable alternative, regardless of your support for it. I want to educate as to not to have my ideas incorrectly characterized. I am not Lenin. I am not the Joker. I am an anarcho-communist. Cambridge Communism Definition The German Ideology (1932) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels The Communist Manifesto (1848) by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels The Conquest of Bread (1892) by Pyotr Alexeyevich Kropotkin The Bolshevik Myth (1925) By Alexander Berkman Prince to Rebel (1990) by George Woodcock and Ivan Avakumovic Stalin (1997) by Edvard Radzinsky
Zarina Macha19 March 2020
********************************************** (This is me responding back to you) Wow, this was super interesting to read. I wrote this article in 2017 aged nineteen, and it is now 2020 and I am twenty-two, so my overall worldview and writing style has changed a bit. I am glad you found my piece interesting (it was definitely a bit over-the-top and zealous in its delivery, that was my dry wit coming out). In all honesty, I don't have much to say other than that I am very thankful for your educating me on communism. You are exactly right that I wrote this while not knowing much about communism besides my studying of the cold war in A level history. I am glad that you clarified a lot of it for me. I agree that anarcho-communism is more socially and economically sound as it removes the system of bureaucrats controlling the state (which we are both critical of) and gives economic power back to the people. Unfortunately, I still stand by my view that humans are inherently selfish and flawed, and that an anarcho-communist state would only work in a really small society where everyone was involved in the community and agreed to share the means of production (like living on a farm or in a commune). Maybe I just have a negative view of people, but I truly believe that there will always be those who want to cheat and exploit the system, and at least capitalism doesn't shy away from that sad fact. To answer your question about revolution, I will admit that historically, peace is not achieved without war and bloodshed, and so yes, sometimes revolutions are necessary. However, a revolution should be rooted in helpful ideals, so yes I would say that I dislike the ideas that motivated the Russian Bolsheviks and Mao, due to what I believe was an unnecessary and less helpful outcome (Stalinist and Maoist dictatorships with mass-slaughter of those who went against the state.) The outcome of a war/revolution is reflective of its practice, so if a violent revolution leads to a peaceful and prosperous outcome, then it can be justified. I know that's a whole debate about consequentialism, and it depends to what extent one believes that the ends justify the means (I do not agree with 'by any means necessary', and I'm sure we both think that compromise and diplomacy with minimal bloodshed is the ideal. But we must also be realistic and pragmatic about the way in which prosperity is and has been achieved -- currently we are living in one of the most peaceful times in human history, despite everything). May I ask what country you are from/live in as I don't think you mentioned that? Thanks again for your response!
A (Hopefully) Reasonable Person20 March 2020
I am pleased to see we have come to some sort of understanding. I do understand your point concerning the human ability to set up such a civilization. Small communes is a solid plan. Many communists and syndicalists have proposed societies made up of small communes bound into one vast federation (similar to Rojava). I will note that I am not a psychologist and my knowledge of the human ability to enact anarchism is fairly limited. I have noticed some examples in nature. Ants working in colonies. Bees sharing their hive. Wolves hunting in packs. This is a communal-like lifestyle. Then again, nature has lone creatures. Sharks, bears, and snakes all live lives in seclusion, only meeting to mate. As for ends justifying means, one must be careful. If more lives are saved or improved with forceful action, it is justified. The approach used by Stalin, Castro, and Mao was unjustified because they did more harm than good and their rule was not agreed upon by the population. Some may see a docile witness who accepts the tragedies of modern life as the violent one. To ignore or enable while misery remains is support for the one who commits such acts. Action is needed as unnecessary strife is common in our world. We need to find a solution and have it carried out. I currently live in the North-East United States. I also spent several years living in the United Kingdom.
Fat Chance of Helping the Obese
07 August 2017
2 comments
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I agree with most of this. My further thoughts: 1. Media marketing goes with aspirational images because they tend to work better at drawing the customer in. 2. I believe the "perfect" body is the "healthy" body. When you are the weight and size etc. you want to be, you feel healthy and perfect. It's more realistic than it seems. :)
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Exactly, looking and being healthy and dressing well is all tied to self esteem.
Is Beyoncé Overrated?
08 August 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I agree Beyoncé does not have a phenomenal voice. I think she's all image all the time and her true nature doesn't seem warm and friendly to me. She comes off to me first and foremost like a good businesswoman and an iconic "diva". Not a very talented "musician" and not an icon for women's rights (but maybe Feminism). I think her image is crafted around how she can make money at the time.
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
I agree with what you said; the thing with celebrities is it's hard to decipher their true nature because a lot of what we see is constructed. As mentioned some of her songs are very based around female empowerment (also, as a fan of hers it's easier for me to write this rather than someone who isn't because I can look at it from both angles). She comes across as someone who is very pro-women, but she is married herself and has always had a good relationship with her father so is certainly not anti-men.
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
I agree and many people don't realize how constructed these people and anyone on TV is at all times, so I'm glad you mentioned that. I don't see her as being very pro-women nor anti-men, I see her as being pro-Feminist and/or pro-herself. A lot of her "messages" are hypocritical and contradictory. Like I said, I think she just goes with whatever's popular at the time. Big trend follower/pusher.
On Liberty
10 August 2017
5 comments
Layla Stepford22 August 2017
"In that case, aren’t liberals really right wing and fascists really left wing?" Just to be clear, "conservatives" are not synonymous with fascists (nor are "liberals"). Fascists are fascists and they *usually* tend to be right-wing because right-wing is more associated with "authoritarianism". That being said, you correctly pointed out that many liberal zealots are more authoritarian than conservative zealots; thereby making liberal zealots more fascist than conservative zealots. In simplistic terms, liberals want revolution and conservatives want reform. Liberals tend to believe there's ALWAYS room for "improvement" whereas Conservatives tend to believe that "if it's not broken, don't 'fix' it." In America, the parties often change values depending on where those in the Bible Belt/Southern States of America side with. During the Civil War, the Southerners identified as Democrats/Liberals and were the ones fighting to KEEP slavery whereas the Republicans/Conservatives (including Abraham Lincoln) were the ones fighting to abolish slavery. Today, the Southerners identify as Republicans/Conservatives (mainly because of Bill Clinton & Bush Jr.) and "fight" against the Democrats/Liberals on issues like welfare and affirmative action etc. In reality, these people should have their own party in America and stop muddying the waters of politics for everyone else but then they'd lose every time (which is what happened when they did branch off as Dixiecrats). They attach to a party so they can have power; And they attach to whatever party isn't seen as the pro-black party at the time, as these "Dixiecrats" are the majority of racists in USA. Just a quick FYI, Ayn Rand sometimes gets associated with "anarchy" in modern times for some unknown reason but she actually condemned anarchism. Like me, she is very supportive of meritocracy and more embracing of natural law but not supportive of "anarchy" and loss of structure and cohesion. "The Nazi Party were classed as far-right, yet they were a **socialist party**. So wouldn't they be far-left?" By modern standards, Yes. People call Trump a fascist usually because *they* are the fascists and/or they have no idea what that word really means and never bothered to look into it. It's the same with why they call him racist and/or sexist etc. Another thing about modern liberals vs. conservatives is that often liberals are really bad at balancing a budget and want to give away money and free programs to everyone but then can't pay for it. Conservatives are often seen as more socially rude or less compassionate but often they are thinking more of balancing the budget and long-term consequences than liberals do. In modern times, liberals tend to follow their "heart" (feelings) and conservatives tend to follow their "head" (logic). In reality, people are supposed to balance between when to follow their heart and when to follow their head. No one should just follow their heart only or their head only, all of the time. It's very unbalanced which is why we have 2 extreme sides that are completely out of balance and a ton of moderates caught in the middle. "Conservatism is more about standing on your own two feet. Looking out for yourself. The problem with this attitude is it is fine for the very wealthy, but not for the majority." You should know that the problem with this attitude has nothing to do with being limited to the "very wealthy" and that's a liberal myth. It's limited to the personally ambitious, not the "very wealthy". I came from a mother on welfare and both parents have been working-class or less economically their entire lives. I didn't stand on my own two feet because of any wealth, but because of my personal desire not to just accept defeat from the get-go or embrace victimization etc.
Layla Stepford22 August 2017
BTW, I took the test and I got Libertarian Left (Green Square). "Your Political Compass: Economic Left/Right: -2.0 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.21" My dot was just a little closer to the center than yours (by the "Plaid Cymru" but very close. I don't think those questions were all well-aligned though. Some of them didn't make sense to me in the context of this quiz and there weren't any "neutral" options.
Zarina Macha23 August 2017
I would have thought you would be classed as libertarian right. Fair enough if the questions didn't all sit-well with you. It is arbitrary after all. True about Rand. She was a libertarian and anti-communism but she was also anti-anarchism. I think because anarchism is an extreme form of libertarianism she probably gets mistakenly identified with anarchism. (I also support meritocracy). Yeah the Democrats vs Republicans thing has always baffled me in the sense that Republicans freed the slaves but they're meant to be the 'bad guys'. (Republicans have a very poor reputation in Britain; the British Conservative party is no where near as right as the Republican party. When I think of Republicans I think anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-LGBT, women stay in the kitchen, kill blacks and jews, only teach Christian values, everyone have guns, free market for all, no universal healthcare etc. I'm sure they're not all like that but that's just the impression I've always gotten. The British Conservative party is more centre-right). Yep, moderate politics is the best. Also agree conservatives are typically better with the economy because they're more practical as opposed to caring about feelings.
Layla Stepford24 August 2017
It's not really that they didn't sit-well with me so much as I thought they were arbitrary to "political identity". What you described was A) A false stereotype that B) better represents those "Dixiecrat" Southerners I was telling you who often get mistaken for the "Republican party" in modern times. These same people were in the "Democrat party" during the Civil War. So as I said before, the parties change and aren't consistent.
Zarina Macha24 August 2017
Ok good to know. I thought that made more sense.
What Makes a Man or a Woman?
20 August 2017
11 comments
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I agree except that we have evolved towards more gender roles, not away from them as sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. I still agree that people should be free to express their gender and I'm not saying anything about enforcing gender roles; Just that I think you're conceptually mistaken about them being "stagnant" or something of the "past".
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
I mean stagnant as in men having to be 'tough' and not show emotion and women being more 'passive'. Like men have always been expected to not show much emotion; crying is viewed as 'unmanly' and that can be really harmful to men because crying is natural and healthy and men shouldn't be expected to hold in their feelings for the sake of 'manliness.' Likewise not all women are 'passive' and 'demure', plenty of women can be successful and resilient (without necessarily being 'bitchy' or 'domineering') so that's what I mean about modern society moving past stagnant gender roles.
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
I think those are more stereotypes rather than actual gender roles etc. Also, when it comes to men crying because their parent died, most people see that as natural and healthy. If a man cries because you called him a "pussy", that's generally seen as not natural and unhealthy and generally should be seen that way. So again, I think you're talking more about stereotypes that aren't very accurate to real life. Likewise, most people to do see the difference between women being "successful and resilient" as opposed to "bitchy or domineering". I think you mean move past gender stereotypes rather than gender roles?
Zarina Macha16 October 2017
Yeah stereotypes is a better way to put it
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
I think the problem is that we used to have a healthy balance of what was suitable to cry over (like death) and what wasn't (like insults). It was about not being so emotionally weak which tends to help one better protect themselves; Not being cold. Today, however, we've gotten super sensitive and emotional so many people see what was balanced and imbalanced because they're looking at it from such an extreme point of view and then that perpetuates the stereotype we have here. Like anything in life, some men took it too far with the emotional stability, of course, but those men were seen as extreme in their day too.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Well many people have lots of survival instincts, that's how we got here today (evolution). One of those traits was not being too sensitive to handle what life throws at us. I think it's not only fair but necessary to acknowledge when that balance is lost and people are actually being groomed to be emotionally weaker and less stable; It only hurts them. As you know, I believe the key is balance. As you said, it's healthy to release [appropriate] emotions but it's not healthy to self-indulge. Part of the reason why this is more "new" is because for a very long time, any person who was *that* sensitive would likely die because life would be too much for them. It's only recently with such advances in technology etc. that people can be more comfortable and face less dangers and hardships etc. Part of what makes us of higher intelligence is the fact that we *can think beyond our feelings* unlike most animals which are driven solely by their main survival desires. It's also seen as just "immature". Children don't have a hold on their emotions as they are still learning that process. When adults act like children do, it's not very healthy.
Zarina Macha18 October 2017
Perhaps also a reason people have become more sensitive is we've become more compassionate over time. Early humans would kill each other over 'godlike sacrifices' and had to look after their 'own'; the instinct to kill is said to be as strong as the instinct to pro-create. Like if there was a zombie apocalypse I doubt people would hesitate to kill each other for food if need be. However, because we aren't living in those kinds of situations anymore (certainly not in the UK/USA) one could say humans are more compassionate and empathetic towards one another as opposed to 'emotionally weaker.' Sensitivity actually is a sign of emotional strength. (Naturally of course, narcissism/self indulgence is not).
Layla Stepford19 October 2017
I think it's the opposite: We're more sensitive because we're less compassionate. People 50 years ago would say things that might be considered "less compassionate" but they're actions were more compassionate. Today people tend to be less selfless and less likely to put others before themselves, yet more likely to not want to verbally offend them with their choice of linguistics. Compared to when we were more barbaric and making human sacrifices though, of course we're more compassionate overall; The trend was going towards more compassionate until the "Me" Generation (for the USA). Just because we don't need to kill each other for survival doesn't mean we're more compassionate, especially if it only takes a little pushing from nature. For example, New York City had a famous black out when all of the electricity went out and many bad things happened - though bad things were already happening there, more people who wouldn't normally join in such activity, started to join in and use it as an excuse to "purge", so to speak. We're just more controlled now; not more compassionate. I wouldn't say "sensitivity" is a sign of emotional strength, but I would say "compassion" is.
Anonymous05 February 2020
A) Sex is defined by chromosomes, not genitals B) The reason so many genders now exist is because many don't want to live with the societal expectations of a man or woman. Gender is a label defining the way people should act. The solution is removing gender from the picture. Treat all equally regardless of sex. Your chromosomes don't have to define how you live. If we stopped making a deal out of the differences, gender archetypes will fade away. People won't identify as boys or girls but as humans with XX or XY chromosomes.
Zarina Macha08 February 2020
I agree that people should be treated with respect and politeness regardless of gender. However, what is wrong with accepting that there are biological evolutionary differences between men and women? Differences in how we act and behave are based on our chemical make-up and wiring, which in turn influence how we behave in a social context. For example; women being naturally programmed to be more nurturing and empathetic (broadly speaking; this isn't to say that all women are the same or that men cannot be empathetic) correlates with the maternal instinct of bearing children. In a social context, this can explain why more women than men choose careers that involve social work or caregiving, such as nursing, teaching, psychology, and the like: https://www.topresume.com/career-advice/top-10-professions-dominated-by-women Compare this to the most male dominated professions: https://www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-male-dominated-industries-and-occupations/ Now, it's easy to write this off as women being given ‘less opportunities’ than men to succeed in professions such as construction and computer programming (which are highly male-dominated). However, I think that does a disservice to the element of choice, but also assumes that women are passively incapable of thinking for ourselves. We choose what we want to do based on our skills and abilities and limitations. Perhaps women are simply less likely to work in ‘male dominated’ industries because they don’t want to. Men being more likely to work in construction and manual labour is due, in part, to their physical advantage. Men are naturally physically stronger and bigger than women, which makes them more suited to certain professions. Perhaps women and men are choosing certain professions based on internal gender differences. One may argue that women are ‘discouraged’ from pursuing STEM or manual industries and that men are ‘discouraged’ from pursuing more traditionally feminine professions. But again, that removes the element of choice, and also, where is the evidence that people are being ‘discouraged’? In most modern day first world countries, there is nothing stopping men and women from pursuing what they want regardless of gender (other factors may come into play, such as economic class or familial expectations). My experience of school was that girls and boys were given the same opportunities; there was more discrimination regarding arts vs sciences i.e. arts and humanities subjects seen as less ‘worthy’ than science-based subjects. (One could say that perhaps arts and humanities are classed as traditionally ‘feminine’ and science and maths are traditionally ‘masculine’ which may be partially responsible for why science subjects are viewed as more worthy. I would need to read more into that as it’s just an idea, but is worth considering, and does pose the question of why feminine based attributes and interests are looked down upon compared to masculine based attributes.) So with the element of choice, perhaps women and men are simply choosing jobs that they are naturally better at (to put it simply). This article explains that over several conducted studies, girls were more likely to play with ‘female’ toys and boys with ‘masculine’ toys. This isn’t a result of ‘societal expectations’ or ‘social pressures.’ It’s due to choice, and that choice comes from internal wiring. https://qz.com/1190996/scientific-research-shows-gender-is-not-just-a-social-construct/ So, what is wrong with that? Men and women are supposed to be different, otherwise there would only be one gender rather than two. (Multiple genders do not suddenly 'exist' just because people want them to, just as gods don’t ‘exist’ just because people ‘feel’ that they do. People’s feelings and beliefs are subjective and don’t equate to facts.)
Zarina Macha08 February 2020
Coming back to your original point, I agree that a person should be judged by the content of their character, not their gender/ethnicity/sexuality. But we can’t just ignore gender differences because some people ‘feel’ that is it ‘offensive’ or ‘unfair.’ We can’t just ‘remove’ gender from the picture because gender differences exist for a reason. Humans evolved to procreate, and that procreation relies on there being evolutionary differences between men and women that are socially expressed, rather than socially ‘constructed.’ Transgender people experience gender dysphoria because their internal hormonal make-up and chromosomes (genotype) do not match their physical characteristics (phenotype). However, they are a tiny percentage of the human population, and prove that gender does have biological influences. (Obviously they still deserve the same basic respect and politeness that all humans should be given, but they’re not entitled to special privileges or special treatment due to their differences. There is a difference between being empathetic and helping to accommodate someone’s needs e.g. making hormone-replacement surgery free on the UK NHS (empathy) versus making all bathrooms gender-neutral just because a few people are trans (granting unnecessary special treatment). What makes more sense is to have both gender-neutral and gender-based bathrooms so that everyone’s needs are being met. I’m sure many women would feel uncomfortable sharing bathrooms with men – I certainly would. And it’s not the same as at home because those are your family members, not strangers.) A person’s genitals are the physical expression of their sex, so to say that one exists without the other is naïve and redundant. Chromosomes and hormones determine physical characteristics in the majority of the human population and always have done (transgender, intersex etc people are a tiny minority). To separate chromosomes from genitals is like saying that a process and end result have no correlation. A filmmaker must go through the process of creating and editing a piece of work in order to have the end product. One does not exist without the other. Likewise, chromosomes and hormones lead to physical sex characteristics, e.g. genitals, hair, body mass. I’m not a scientist, and I willingly accept that this is all based on my opinion, but my opinion on this matter comes from research and reading, not my ‘feelings.’ Again, I really don’t understand why it is so wrong to say that men and women are different. We are not poles apart; we all breathe and eat and mate, but we do have some differences, and those differences are what has helped the human race to progress and move forward over thousands of years. Also, I apologise for the length of this comment. Just wanted to make sure I covered everything. My blog is always evolving; this post was written in 2017, and my views and perspectives continue to shift and evolve as well.
Morality?
21 August 2017
2 comments
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
Interesting read. In the USA, our laws try to balance a "moral code" that everyone has agreed on. The constant are the crimes that are illegal (murder, rape, theft) and the flexibility comes in the sentencing which takes such factors into account as intent, circumstance, etc. The best example of this is in murder as we have 1st degree, 2nd degree and 3rd degree which is reliant on whether the person planned the murder or it happened spontaneously and why/how it happened. I don't like religious moral codes being pushed on others because they are very biased and rooted in the religion/cult. The law, on the other hand, in a democracy, should be representing the most commonly shared moral values of the members in that society - with everyone getting a voice so there is some justice. Unfortunately for people who are in the minority, they tend not to like this method. This is why I think it's so important that people balance their feelings/personal biases with objective truths. Scientifically, people who are gay are born that way and most people cite this recognition as what helped them understand gays and get past their personal feelings. Seeing it from a more scientific perspective made them stand back and realize it was similar to judging people for their race/gender/eye color etc. For those who only looked at it through how they felt about it, the science didn't matter either way. We can't appeal to everyone's personal feelings about things but if we can all find some common ground where there IS objectivity and data etc, then I think we would be better off. Too often I see people going for the emotional argument which is ultimately a narrow-minded argument as it can only appeal to those with similar emotions. When people use facts and data in an argument, it has more of a likelihood to appeal to the common sense judgment of most people because it makes sense to be more organic and go "with the tide". This is how I try to balance things myself. If I went with how I feel about stuff, my proposals would always be subjective and more limiting as you mentioned. However, if I go with what is true and most logical, my proposals would appeal to more people because they are objective so many people can find common ground there.
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Very well said. I think it's the same in the UK as well though I don't know much about the legal system; like 1st degree murder/manslaughter etc.
Does Life Have a Meaning?
22 August 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
"Because humans are sentient beings with a high level of cognition, we are designed to question our existence." Have you ever heard the phrase that "we are the universe looking back at itself"? As you mentioned, we are in a unique position as human beings compared to all other living things on Earth. We have a superior knowledge to question things and gain understanding about the world around us. Personally, I think THAT is our meaning of life. Existing, experiencing life and learning more about it. :) [This is also why I think education/knowledge and the notion of "never stop growing" is so important and should be taught to kids.]
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Yeah, a friend of mine often brings that up of us being the universe looking back at itself. I think that is a really nice way to look at our purpose :)
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
Ever since I was given that answer, I've been giving it myself. I think it's the best answer I've heard, logically and emotionally. :)
12 Favourite Women in Disney Films
01 September 2017
2 comments
Vibha01 September 2017
Wow... I loved reading it... I too love watching them.. There stories and individual journey through struggle is inspiring... They surely are fabulous 👍 Visit my blog. https://tryrandom.blogspot.in/2017/09/magical-touch.html?m=1
Zarina Macha01 September 2017
Thank you very much and I will!
Society's Double Standard
03 September 2017
5 comments
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
It's interesting about what you said about the husband working all of the time and you as the wife not getting laid as a result, as it is usually the opposite. When both people in a marriage work they are less likely to have sex than if only 1 works - especially if it's just the male. This is especially because women's sexuality is so emotionally-affected so stressful days at work often lead them to not wanting to have sex whereas staying at home mostly relaxed all day leads them to be more open to sex when their husband comes home and needs/wants it. (And when both partners work, the chances of one of them cheating are higher as well than when only 1 works as well as their chances of divorce go up when both work. Obviously I'm not saying it always leads to that; Just that it does make it more likely, mathematically.) "But why are young people told to place less value on relationships with others and more value on ‘achievements’?" Simply put, because when they are younger, the VAST majority of people are not ready for such intimate relationships yet. Achievements help keep food on the table and a roof over our heads though. 'Focus on careers, they'll be so much time later for boys.' is mainly sourced from Feminism rhetoric as they do place career over family at any age. Before Feminism, girls of school-age were already taught how to get a man's attention, how to make a man happy and how to keep a man etc. the respectful (madonna) way. Today, women tend to only know how to do those things the non-respectful (non-madonna) way. Men, on the other hand, never stopped being told these things about how to please and attract women. Simone De Beauvoir, a French Feminist icon, said, "No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one. It is a way of forcing women in a certain direction." I believe that answers your question on why women are so discouraged from relationships/family over career. About children being sexual: (1) Most children under 12 aren't that curious about sexuality unless they have been exposed to sex at a young age and/or were molested and/or raped. This is part of why people get horrified at children being sexual because it usually means something really bad happened to them as a child. (2) It's politically incorrect so it's never really brought up but some races do have tendencies to engage in sexual activity younger. For example, Black people are far more likely to engage in sex under years old than any other race; Native American people are more likely to start engaging in sex shortly after becoming a teenager; White people tend to start engaging in sex more in their mid-older teen years; Asian people tend to wait the longest - especially the women, as they do tend to capitalize more on the whole virginity thing (using it to get the highest quality man they can get). Overall, I agree with your message of balance, of course. :)
Zarina Macha16 October 2017
When I mentioned 'the husband working all the time and me not getting laid' I was saying it in a more jokey way, like referring to the stereotype of 50s married couples where the husband is always working and the housewife is by herself bored at home. (I meant it as a joke, of course not all housewives are 'bored at home'). I don't mean just romantic relationships, I also mean friendships too, like in school teachers emphasise studying as opposed to spending time with friends. Sure, it's true that people mature as they get older and friendships become more meaningful and less 'situational dependent.' Are you familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? He states we have 5 core needs: physiological (oxygen, food, water), stability (house), belonging (friends, family, lovers), success (achievements, careers) and that all of these things lead to self-actualisation. I think in my case I've often placed too much emphasis on number 4 and missed out on number 3, like in sixth form we were all encouraged to study really hard for our A levels and I noticed a lot of my peers (and myself) feeling lonely and stressed out due to being in the library all the time and not socialising enough. Partly that was my choice, but just pointing it out. I don't know much about De Beauvoir, although I've always been curious to read The Second Sex and I know she was married to Sartre? That's a really ridiculous thing to say, of course women should always have a choice.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Just letting you know. :) Sometimes the stats back the stereotypes and sometimes they don't; this one doesn't. No, I'm not familiar but you only named 4 Needs (not 5). Sounds really interesting though. What she said was really ridiculous to most people but pretty standard for Feminists - especially in her time.
Zarina Macha17 October 2017
Self actualisation is the fifth 'need' and it's basically all the others combined. https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Thanks for attaching the link! :D Now that I see that triangle, that picture does look familiar but it's not anything I've ever studied or read about in detail.
EVIL STRAIGHT WHITE MEN!
04 September 2017
2 comments
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
Excellent points made here!
Zarina Macha01 December 2017
Thanks xxx
What's wrong with Anita Sarkeesian?
05 September 2017
4 comments
Unknown05 September 2017
There are a lot of self-serving YouTube channels claiming to be open, but in reality they usually just post clickbait type controversial videos to rile people up, and these channel owners could care less what people think and they are in it mostly for the YouTube revenue. Apparently getting to 100,000 subscribers gives a moderate income, and those with millions of subscribers can afford lavish lifestyles. Religious sites often to the same thing disabling comments, but sell their comforting stories and rage at the great "wickedness' in the world to make the followers feel superior and better than others, all to get more cash from YouTube. I am a supporter of basic feminism for having equal rights and opportunities, but admit I don't go along with much of what i hear from radical feminists. Also, as a male i think men should take more responsibility for teaching their sons to be more respectful of women in general, and my wish is that demeaning locker room talk about women will someday be more unacceptable. For many backward areas of the world that will be a long time coming, unfortunately.
Zarina Macha05 September 2017
Supporting equal rights and opportunities is egalitarianism and humanism. Of course plenty of feminists do believe in equality, but in the West women and men ARE equal and there is no reason to 'demand' more rights when in some cases women have advantages over men and just want special privileges. It is a shame that there are silly channels that just post content for views that get much more money than those that are well-researched and rational. I don't think 'locker room talk' is bad as it's human nature to joke around; as long as it's jokey and those men don't actually treat women badly. But for men that do women can of course be aware and stay away from men like that that just use women and discard them.
Layla Stepford07 September 2017
"Pretty much everything"" - Agreed! She's such a sexist and entitled Feminist. She represents just about everything wrong with modern/western women today (as well as Feminism in general).
Layla Stepford10 September 2017
Walter White: 1) many women are purposefully having kids without men in the home, so that would be the woman's fault for not having fathers around to teach their children "proper treatment of women" 2) men already do teach their sons to respect women AND men tend to respect women more than women respect men in the Western world 3) why don't you also say "women should teach their daughters to respect men"? do you not believe that men deserve respect too or do you think that women need special treatment? 4) you want men to change the way they talk when women aren't even around?!? are you that sexist against men that you believe they need to be controlled according to women's feelings 24/7; 365 days a week? 5) women talk far worse about men when men aren't around, then men talk about women when women aren't around, especially when we're talking about men and women in committed relationships. women are constantly emasculating the men they're with and making fun of them; most men don't do that unless they're boasting about a 1 night stand. 6) you didn't say that you wished "the way women talk about men in the nail salon or hair salon or coffee shop etc. should be more unacceptable". are you that sexist that you think women should always be able to talk about men in any degrading ways that they want to, and only men have to have their language policed? 7) Funny that you say you don't go along with what you hear from "radical Feminists" since you're spouting those beliefs yourself. You want men to police their language and take responsibility for things they don't have control over but you give women a complete pass. Thanks for sharing your sexist views.
Favourite Children's Authors
06 September 2017
3 comments
Unknown05 March 2020
i would like you do bring some books to our school libary
Unknown05 March 2020
if you see this please reply
Zarina Macha19 March 2020
Hello, please email me at info@zarinamacha.co.uk if you would like to discuss library books x
Male Circumcision...
08 September 2017
4 comments
Layla Stepford15 September 2017
From everything I've heard, it's very bad for men and leads to more infections and less sexual pleasure. The only reason for it is religious. Either way, I think the most important thing is this: Almost no grown man ever decides to do this. **Doing it to children is child abuse.** We just pretend it's not because we do it to boys who are too young to properly complain and articulate their refusal to go through with it. If this really had any positive benefits then we should let grown men decide for themselves if they want to go through with it; not boys who are too young to voice their opposition to it, yet old enough to feel the immense pain it brings.
Zarina Macha16 September 2017
Agreed. However, as mentioned, there are some medical reasons that men have to have it done as adults due to the foreskin not 'retracting'. (One of the articles I link to the British National Health Service website explains this). Also, on a G+ thread a man commented saying he had to have it done as a baby due to his foreskin being too tight (which is the only medical exception I believe) and it was affecting his kidneys and making him 'piss blood.' It's on the 'Just Thinkers' thread; I will tag you in it in case you want to have a look at that conversation.
Anonymous05 October 2017
Way down under in Melbourne, Australia is the story of a tightly done male adult circumcision of the ultimate kind. You’ll never believe the story … or will you? Around 17 years ago, I became aware that circumcision was of interest to me. How to go about it ? What an embarrassment, how to sneak into a Doctor cost etc. I became more and more frustrated, as I knew I wanted it done. Australia is a hot climate too and I wanted a slick model penis, not a sock, at half mast. I had learnt from school that I was bisexual, I would use the odd opportunity to check out and occasionally talk another classmate into pulling down his pants and letting me give him oral sex. Both circumcised and uncircumcised, although I didn’t know what circumcision was then, I was only ten ! We start pretty early in Australia ! Anyway back to circumcision. I became more and more, frustrated and there didn’t seem to be a way of resolving the issue. Then I had a bereavement in the family. If I couldn’t solve this simple problem… It was a question of honor. So what I did may surprise many. I am an everyday kind of bloke, a family now, job and the rest of it. So don’t be too shocked. Where there is a will there is a way. I had been researching on the net at the time and I was reading and seeing pics of tribal and African circumcisions. There are great stories of the Tuli in the Philippines and also teens putting their penis on a log with a piece of twine and the elder slicing off the foreskin, high and tight, leaving a terrific red patched scar. I decided after much viewing and research that this is what I wanted. I was a bit far from the Philippines and Africa, so this is what happened. One long weekend when there was a Public holiday, I decided to have a go myself. This is not for the faint hearted. On the Friday night, I did the usual, a few beers then came home. I opened a bottle of white wine and proceeded to watch an x-rated video. Of course with a long ring barked cock or two. After a while I was ready. A bit of popper amyl and I was more or less ready to have a go. At circumcision. I knew the skin would be sensitive, so I had purchased from an adult store, delay spray. This I think had lidocaine like when you get Suntan mozzie burns cream from the supermarket only stronger. I applied it to my foreskin until the end of my cock felt number, than usual. Another drink and some poppers, a look at the tightly taut scarred cocks on the TV screen and it was time. Time to join the rest of my male brothers on the planet with a permanently forever nude glans and a stripped pointed helmety penis. Intention purple glans to always lead the way, from that night on or else. I sized and drew a line working out where to cut and checked this out numerous times. Another drink, more amyl and an inspection of the video playing and I was ready. I took a very sharp pair a medium size sewing scissors and sat down. Carefully lining them up, I very slowly, and I mean really really slowly, put them through the line on the foreskin I had drawn. I had already pulled the foreskin as hard as I ever could in front of my glans. Slowly but surely I got the job done. Everything dropped back behind my glans and my foreskin lay on a tissue. A dream come true. I couldn’t believe my absolute relief and satisfaction. All this time later nearly two decades on, I am still happy. A couple a days later, I consulted a friendly doctor and some stitches were added on the quiet to complete the job. Result is I have a very tightly circumcised penis, with absolutely no frenulum or foreskin. The absolute tightest male circumcision possible, for myself and any partner I should choose, whether it be female or male. Amazingly there is no two tone scar and the circumcision join is one color and height. No different levels of skin height or misalignment. Nature really does like circumcision.
Zarina Macha15 January 2018
Holy shit man! That sounds...well, I wouldn't try that at home, kids. Lol. Good on you if it made you happy! I can't believe you did that yourself. Couldn't you go to a doctor? Or was it because you felt too embarrassed? You're lucky you didn't chop your dick off or anything.
FUCK IDENTITY POLITICS.
10 September 2017
4 comments
Unknown11 September 2017
i agree with this 100% and these people claim to be like the hippies of the 60s except they were fighting actual systemic racism, homophobia etc. and while the black panthers were insane and did do some harm they at least did some things to help out their community and their hatred was at least understandable imo, but bullying people for not fitting a certain label or acting like all whites are the devil is not cool and whining doesn't fix problems this shit is hurting black people and trans people
Zarina Macha11 September 2017
Absolutely. I have another post that compares the 60s hippie movement with the SJWs of today: http://www.thezarinamachablog.co.uk/2017/02/counter-culture-vs-sjws.html
Unknown11 September 2017
awesome, i gotta check it out
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
I agree 100%!
Female Genital Mutilation
11 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown11 September 2017
fgm is disgusting, at least circumcision has some benefits
Zarina Macha11 September 2017
I'm not sure about male circumcision having 'benefits', although I guess you could say it makes it easier to clean the penis. FGM is definitely worse though, the two are incomparable.
Picture Perfect
12 September 2017
3 comments
Unknown13 September 2017
as someone who struggled with severe self confidence issues for years i can see where you're coming from, i try not to let all the fake happy pictures and bad shit in the world get me down, what depresses me more now days is thinking that no matter what my brain will keep me from ever being happy in the long term
Zarina Macha13 September 2017
Happiness is a journey, not a destination. (Such a cliche thing to say I know). Doing things that make you feel good, getting enough sleep, meditating, exercising, and telling yourself good things about yourself each day really help. I have a 'gratitude jar' which is part of what we do in AA (though some people do 'gratitude lists.') I basically write down something that made me happy in the day, or the week, write it on a piece of paper and put it in the jar. Then every now and again when I'm feeling down or whatever I flick through what I've written and it makes me smile. Really does make a difference.
Unknown13 September 2017
thanks :)
Applying to Oxbridge
15 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown16 September 2017
sorry to hear you had a tough time at uni :/
Zarina Macha16 September 2017
Aw thank you, it's ok. After not getting into Cambridge I went to York for a term and a half, and now I go to the Academy of Contemporary Music in Surrey which is great :)
Witchcraft
16 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown17 September 2017
my personal view is magic only really exists in video games books movies tv shows and music (probaly) but i will admit i find supernatural stuff interesting
Zarina Macha17 September 2017
It it interesting, same with Astrology. However agreed it most likely just exists in fictional settings.
The Magic of Books
20 September 2017
3 comments
Unknown21 September 2017
though i don't read many books (aside from manga) i do love good stories and atmosphere and fun in entertainment mediums
Unknown12 April 2018
Great post! I haven't read any Stephen King, but I've heard so many good things!I love how you end this it by saying "it's the ones they love that are more important than whatever 'treasure' the villain craves." I couldn't agree more. :D Amy @ Amy's Bookshelf
Zarina Macha13 April 2018
Thank you! Stephen King is amazing, I recommend Carrie or Misery as a starter as they're not very long and are very gripping (and some of his more famous earlier ones).
What is a misogynist?
21 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown22 September 2017
i agree 100%
Layla Stepford29 September 2017
I agree 100% as well.
Personality Types
22 September 2017
1 comment
Unknown23 September 2017
i'd say i'm a mix of 3 and 4 (somethimes more one than the other)
Rating the Characters on The Big Bang Theory
23 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown24 September 2017
it's been a while since i watched big bang theory and i find plenty of sitcoms to not be that good (outside of my name is earl and some others) but i do enjoy them, and i love some shows i know have awful characters (madoka magica being among them) but this was a fun post :)
Zarina Macha24 September 2017
Haha glad you enjoyed it!
Am I an anti-feminist?
25 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown25 September 2017
i consider myself "someone against dangerous ideologies" i dislike a lot of modern feminism and i think telling women and blacks their just poor opprerssed little victims who should be allowed to behave however they want with no repurcussions and men and white people are the cause of their problems not only doesn't help them but is dangerous (hell there are people being killed because of this narrative)
Zarina Macha26 September 2017
Exactly, all ideologies taken to the extreme just cause destruction and 'Project Mayhem' hehe.
Inappropriate clothing?
27 September 2017
9 comments
Unknown27 September 2017
i usually wear t shirts and either shorts or gym pants (just what i prefer) and i can understand some schools having dress codes (though some are stupid as hell) but i agree with this let people wear what makes them comfortable
Zarina Macha27 September 2017
Yeah, school dress codes are tricky. In Britain (sorry, not sure if you're british or american) most schools have a uniform (which I never liked though I understand why it's a thing), and that can help. At uni it's different, people wear whatever because we're adults and now responsible etc. Some go to lectures in their pyjamas if they're at 9 in the morning. I guess they want students to stay 'respectable' but then it's like where do you draw the line and what about when it's hot etc. Also not all schools reinforce it; in my secondary school we weren't technically supposed to shorten our skirts or wear big earrings or customise our ties but people still did.
Unknown27 September 2017
i'm american
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
I won't speak for England but in America, there is no sexist ‘policing’ of what girls wear in school. We have something called uniforms because psychologically it helps both kids focus more on the schoolwork. Boys aren't allowed to wear super short-shorts either and some girls are just going to have to get used to the fact that school is not the place for them to dress that way. Just like when people go into a court, they also usually dress very formal because that is what is appropriate. Same for nice restaurants and weddings etc. There is a time and place for everything and these girls complaining about school uniform are really just spoiled and want to do whatever *they* want to do. Well that's what their *own* time is for, not time "on the clock" at school (or work, later in life).
Zarina Macha16 October 2017
I mean I sort of disagree with uniforms because I think they remove individuality. I thought most American schools didn't have school uniforms? Or maybe it depends on the state. I get that for some people it can be a pain deciding what to wear everyday and because kids are judgemental arseholes they might make fun of some kids for wearing certain clothes, but then kids tend to make fun of each other anyway. Back in secondary school we used to make 'amendments' to our uniforms like shortening our skirts and loosening our ties and I always wore make-up and big earrings even though we weren't strictly supposed to. I just liked the way they look; I've always worn an eclectic mix of earrings.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Yes, that's the point though. You're not as school to explore your individuality, you're at school to learn and get a valuable education. That's the point behind the uniform. From what I've seen, most elementary and middle schools have the classic uniform and high schools just have some guidelines. I didn't see anything wrong with that until spoiled and entitled girls started complaining they shouldn't have to follow *any* guidelines and then I thought, well maybe they should just wear the uniform so there's no silly debate like this.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
*at school (not as)
Zarina Macha17 October 2017
I do think as a teenager growing up exploring your individuality is important though as opposed to just becoming a mindless drone like everyone else. You also go to school to learn about what you want to do and be in the future career wise and how you see yourself as.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
I agree with your concept which is why I thought the non-uniform with guidelines was a happy medium for high school girls but as I said, many of them don't believe they have to follow *any* authority and we've seen how that has caused many western women to turn out - and it's not exactly for the better. It goes too far; Too many western women don't respect boundaries.
Insomnia
28 September 2017
2 comments
Unknown29 September 2017
sorry to hear this happens to you :/
Zarina Macha29 September 2017
It's ok xx
Is Marriage a Weird Idea?
30 September 2017
5 comments
Unknown01 October 2017
i'm 25 (turning 26 on november 4th) and tbh i'm apathetic to marriage and if two consenting adults want to do it fine i agree with a lot of what you've written here
Zarina Macha01 October 2017
Cheers xx I think tbh some people get married because they think that's what society 'expects' of them when they're happy not to and to just stay in a relationship with their partner. I have friends whose parents aren't married and they're happily together.
Unknown01 October 2017
agreed, i also think for some people it's that they don't want to "die alone" (though that's not a good reason to get married imo)
Sally07 October 2017
I think the reasons for divorce have been oversimplified here, relationships are very complex things. No two divorces are the same and I think bringing feminism in to it is dangerous ground. Feminism is about equality and freedom to choose, not about changing gender roles (even if that is an outcome). I think it's more that we simply have more freedom nowadays to make choices about marriage. As you say we are no longer forced to suck it up with someone we're unhappy with. You're right that people change but I think if you are in the right relationship you change and adapt together. That's exactly the point of a relationship, it's all about compromise and learning and accepting each other's flaws. The idea that is portrayed in Disney of soulmates etc is nonsense if you ask me. Relationship ages is a weird one. I'd have said I wouldn't date much older than me before my current rrelationship but my partner is 32 and I'm 25. I'm not sure it's about men being more mature (not in all cases anyway) everyone thinks my boyfriend is same age as me! For us it's more about shared values and perspectives on what we want from life and how the world works. We're both big kids at heart. Without those fundamentals I'm not sure any relationship can work long term. I agree when it comes to waiting for marriage, I think you need to be with someone for years and live with them before committing to marriage. My parents were together 10 years before they got married! I think I'll follow their approach! Besides there's no rush, you've got your whole life to live, what's the point in getting married so soon?
Zarina Macha07 October 2017
I agree that marriage and age is more about shared values and perspectives; that's a good way to put it. Exactly, some people rush into marriage - a friend of mine's cousin was with their partner for 10 years before marriage. Not saying everyone should wait that long, but if you can't stay with a person for a lengthy time how are you going to know if you're compatible enough to stay together? The 'soulmates' thing is very romanticised in Disney films and especially rom-coms, but they are 'escapist' films and unfortunately media can influence us subconsciously into taking those things literally. I disagree with feminism not being about changing gender roles as that is actually one of the core aims of feminism, about breaking down gender roles. (Not saying that's good or bad, just pointing it out). Some strands of feminism are about choice and equality; others are about female supremacy. If you look at the feminist movement around the 60s-80s, it was very anti-housewives (and you could argue anti-marriage although I don't think the main core of feminism is to get rid of marriage) with slogans like 'housewives are unpaid slaves' and 'don't cook dinner, starve a rat today.' Some (I must stress that as it's such a wide and divided movement) feminists claim that marriage and the nuclear family is oppressive to women. I can see their point; 'oppressive' is a very strong term but certainly some women may have felt restricted in their marriages before the option of divorce. It's a bit complicated, because if you were to look at the suffragettes, they were campaigning for votes and property rights, but then 2nd wave/3rd wave feminists have been more anti-marriage. Then again, Helen Gurley Brown (the creator of Cosmopolitan) was a feminist and was very pro marriage and a career - she coined 'having it all' as a job and a husband. So quite complicated indeed; the feminist movement is just all over the place.
The Seven Deadly Sins
01 October 2017
1 comment
Unknown02 October 2017
i agree with this, though i'm not religous i believe all of these should be kept in check cause taken to the extreme things can end up badly very quickly
Can you raise a kid at 16?
02 October 2017
6 comments
Unknown03 October 2017
to me it depends on the person, it's possible to raise kids at 16 it's very difficult and shouldn't be encouraged, nice article
Zarina Macha03 October 2017
No worries. I think we all know someone from school who got pregnant in their teens. Provided they can work it out and provide good care for the child it's their call at the end of the day.
Unknown03 October 2017
agreed
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
Women have always tended to prefer to have kids younger than later because that is when they're most fertile and give the most nutrients and tend to have the least problems etc. so part of that is an evolutionary thing. With the modern advances in society, women can wait a little longer to have children they used to without losing a lot of the benefits. In societies like USA and England, I don't think any 16 year old person should be having a child, they're still a child themselves - of course they're not ready! And part of that IS our society, it's not tailored to making women baby-producers as their primary focus. In cultures that do, those younger women are definitely more ready than the young women of the same age in our cultures. The way I see it, becoming a parent IS a 2 person experience which means it shouldn't happen unless both people are ready individually as well as collectively, emotionally, financially and practically etc.
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Yeah nowadays women can also freeze eggs if they want to have children later as opposed to earlier. I think when it comes to having a child it's good to have as much support around you as possible, so the support of both partners but also extended friends and family. Of course wealthier people can also afford to higher nannies and au pairs as well.
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
Yes, this is why even polygamous homes are better for children than single parent homes as there is always someone around to tend to and pay attention to the children.
A Closer Look at the Classic Disney Princesses
03 October 2017
2 comments
Unknown03 October 2017
i adore these disney princesses and their movies and the story behind snow white is amazing (the making of it) and sure they may be kind of bland by todays standards but these were made during a much different time
Zarina Macha03 October 2017
Exactly, it's all about looking at things within their proper context.
Blogging Tips!
05 October 2017
4 comments
Aqsa Iqbal07 October 2017
This was helpful. Thanks!
Zarina Macha07 October 2017
No worries!
Uzzmaf10 October 2017
give your feedback visiting my blog https://newsgtrends.blogspot.com/2017/10/jhene-aiko-tattoos-portrait-of-big-sean.html
Zarina Macha11 October 2017
Looks very interesting, nice formatting and a range of intriguing topics!
Am I A Nihilist?
08 October 2017
1 comment
Unknown09 October 2017
i agree with this, i do think people make their own value in life but i also believe that there's no objective meaning in us being here
Being a musician is hard
09 October 2017
1 comment
Microphone08 November 2017
You need to play with great musicians. You won't enhance rapidly in the event that you play with individuals who don't play well. I as of late passed on a band on the grounds that the beat guitarist was unpleasant. Decent person, however. As a matter of fact needed to tune in around him to play the melodies. While it was a fascinating activity, that kind of thing is baffling and foolish.
Lightskin vs Darkskin vs Blonde vs Brunette vs Bullshit
10 October 2017
8 comments
Unknown11 October 2017
people who are overly obsessed with skin color bug the hell out of me, chances are if you think crying about "white genocide" on twitter will help increase white birth rates and people calling you an idiot for clinging to the bell curve like it's an unquestionable holy book is just them being "white guilt cucks" or "antiwhite" you're not mensa material
Zarina Macha11 October 2017
This made me laugh XD
Unknown11 October 2017
glad i made you laugh :D
Layla Stepford15 October 2017
I think with women especially, a lot of this comes from wanting to be "different". Women often want what they don't have when it comes to physical beauty. Some women are comfortable in their own skin/hair/eye color, some love it and own it, and some wish and/or try to change it and be something else that they think might be "better" because they're usually not happy with how things seem to be going for them (which is usually rooted in far more factors than their color palette).
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Yeah and it's a shame that women's magazines and adverts are always trying to sell women products to make them 'better looking' rather than just saying be comfortable and happy as you are. If we go back to evolution, women are typically more attractive than men in order to attract a mate (sexual selection) hence why women place so much emphasis on looks. In some animals it differs, like in peacocks the men have big beautiful feathers as they're the ones trying to attract a mate.
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
Exactly. Most women's magazines are based on women not being happy which is why they never *really* tell women how to truly be happy or what would they sell? How would they keep up the profits they get from manipulating women into desperation? That's another thing about Feminism and women working that doesn't get talked about. With less women getting married and more women working, predominantly female products like make-up and hair appointments etc. have greatly increased in their prices - because they can as they know women will be more likely to spend that kind of money on such things. (When less women worked and more were spending their husband's money, those products couldn't be *quite* as expensive as men have always been more frugal with money than women.) That being said, you are right about the desire for women to be "better looking" is instinctual and evolutionary. Make-up wasn't invented for commercial reasons, women in tribes figured out ways to use ash and other natural ingredients to make themselves look more "attractive" to their male population - as you said, they wanted to find a good mate who could help provide for them and protect them. So the root of this comes from women wanting to not be alone and/or get male attention. Some women just take it way too far competitively and some women take it too far emotionally with insecurity.
Zarina Macha16 October 2017
With make-up men also have worn it too, like in Ancient Egypt a lot of royal figures wore it to look 'wealthy' and attractive. (I mention this in my 'what makes a man or woman' post). But yeah of course it's rooting in evolutionary sexual selection.
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Yes but I'm talking about in the western societies that are affected by both capitalism and western Feminism. My point is not about what is considered feminine today vs. ancient egypt but the fact that from make-up to purses to dresses to high heels to hair and salon appointments etc. and everything else that has a female-dominated audience/market, has gone UP in price since more women started working and getting married less. **Women account for 83% of US consumer spending.** Many women are being taken advantage of by Feminist-capitalists who like to see them alone, where they tend to spend more money (and do more "therapeutic" shopping) and are more susceptible to ads, propaganda and rhetoric etc. We don't talk about it though, because our media is too Feminist-controlled/influenced. Women's products on average, tend to cost more than men's products, even though men tend to make more money and have more money. As I said, men tend to be more frugal than women - And women with men tend to be more frugal than women without men.
Is Murder Always Wrong?
11 October 2017
3 comments
Layla Stepford16 October 2017
I agree with a lot of this. I watch a lot of true-crime stuff (documentaries and TV shows etc.) and I have to say that I do see certain "murders" as being more justified than others. When a child kills their parents for abusing them, I see that as far more justified than a wife killing a husband because he cheated or for his money etc. So I do think this is one topic that does get too pushed into black-and-white answers when in reality, it's often much more complex.
Zarina Macha16 October 2017
It is true. Or like when we were talking about rape situations; of course a serial rapist going into young girls' bedrooms and raping them is much worse than a husband raping his wife as they've already had sex and she won't be traumatised from it in the same way. All I was saying is that the first situation is far less common as most people are raped from someone they know. However, one could argue that being raped by someone you know is more traumatic because you expect them to love you and care for you so for them to turn around and rape you is awful. (It also does depend on what is classed as rape; there's full on, no grey area rape and then there's all the other possibilites like assault, coercion, drugged sex, date rape, etc. Just like it's very different if a husband beats his wife and rapes her then it is if he has sex with her without asking and she's not in the mood. I wouldn't class the latter as 'rape', just reluctant sex).
Layla Stepford17 October 2017
Well it's less common to be raped by your husband than by a serial rapist as well; which is what I was trying to say. The most common rape by people one knows is usually someone like a neighbor or co-worker or a friend of a friend/family member or in some cases an ex-boyfriend etc. or with family - a parent/grandparent or in some cases an ex-husband. It's usually not a current boyfriend or husband. But yes, there are a ton of factors that go into most crimes and I do think it would be better if the crime system did reflect that better. In the USA there are differences between misdemeanors (petty crimes) and felonies (big crimes) and we have different sentencing possibilities based on the factors involved but it's not very consistent and too many people do get screwed over by the system or on the flip side, not punished enough.
Malcolm X vs Martin Luther King
14 October 2017
2 comments
Unknown15 October 2017
i understand why malcom and the panthers ended up as radicalized as they were and the black panthers did serve a valuable role in many black communities helping out those in need when many in their country viewed them as subhuman and not worthy of equal treatment but i believe mlk did do a lot more to help
Zarina Macha15 October 2017
Same here.
What's Wrong With Incest?
16 October 2017
1 comment
Unknown18 October 2017
personally i don't think incest (done in a way that can't lead to pregnancy and that's consensual) is that bad, yeah sleeping with a sibling is kinda weird and gross but eh live and let live
Why do people do drugs?
19 October 2017
5 comments
Unknown20 October 2017
i agree 100%
Layla Stepford20 October 2017
I think there's a lot of truth to the 2 reasons you gave and perhaps you could classify "stress" under the 2nd reason but I don't think the "stress" reason is quite as "intense" as "escape". People who smoke cigarettes or have 1 glass of wine or glass of whiskey etc. aren't doing it to escape, it's because they're stressed and they want to "wind" - or calm - down. This is especially true for people who smoke marijuana. I grew up in a town where basically everyone and their parents smoked. There were many people around town who had been smoking marijuana since the 60s etc. So you said "someone who was smoking for fifteen years straight and had their life lost to this seemingly ‘harmless’ drug may beg to differ" but there are far more people out there who have smoked for decades with little to no consequences and would beg to differ with your point about it not being "safe". A lot of it has to do with a person's genetics. Just like alcohol has different effects on people: some getting angry and violent, some sexual and flirty, some sad and depressive. (Except alcohol is actually a poison; whereas marijuana is a plant.) The thing about marijuana specifically, compared to all other drugs, is that it does have medicinal properties for some people in some circumstances etc. In addition, some people even smoke to become *more* productive, not less, as it has a different effect on their body chemistry. There are also different kinds of weed and not all of them have the effect that you speak of.
Zarina Macha21 October 2017
Yeah it's very true that people use fags or booze to 'calm down.' I'm far from a chain smoker but I did smoke cigarettes on and off for about a year; haven't smoked now since I think August or July. I think it's more the psychological thing of having something to do with your hands and breathing in and out, and obviously nicotine has a calming and addictive effect. I think cigarettes are disgusting and a waste of money and most people I know who smoke or who were smokers just spent most of the time trying to quit or switch to vaping. They just make you cough a lot and feel sick and maybe briefly make you feel good but then you just want another and yeah they're so shit lol. Yeah I know drugs all affect people differently, I guess I'm talking more about those who've been addicted to weed for a long time and feel like they've lost all that time to smoking weed rather than doing what they want to do. Yeah I know marijuana does have some medicinal properties like with cancer and I support legalisation because of cutting down on the black market, I just don't like it when people claim its 'safe' because sure it's safer compared to heroin or alcohol but it's still a drug with consequences.
Layla Stepford22 October 2017
Yeah, some people definitely do have more of a psychological connection with the breathing or occupying of the hands or even the mouth (as some people switch from cigarettes to stress eating). So my point on that detail is merely that I don't think it's limited to the 2 main reasons you gave, as some people aren't socializing but aren't necessarily trying to "escape" either; just wind down. Where I live, *a lot* of people smoke weed and most people don't have a negative attitude towards marijuana and it's effect on their life; regardless of age and amount of years or decades smoking. I'm not saying NO person has ever felt that "weed took their life away from them" but I've certainly never met that person and I've met *at least* 100 different people who smoke, from different backgrounds, for different reasons, of different ages, with different levels of experience etc. and not a single one of them ever said they felt they lost their "life" to smoking too much weed. That being said, I did know a couple people who very worried about the consequences of it but they didn't lose anything to it, they just simply either stopped smoking altogether or stopped smoking for the most part and only had a small bit every once in a great while. Marijuana has a bad reputation because it used to be much more of an "escape" drug and there used to be more classic, stereotypical "stoners" but nowadays, it's much more similar to having a glass of wine or whiskey etc. I can't speak for England but in the USA, there are still some people who look at marijuana like it's worse than heroin or LSD etc. In reality, it's not even worse than cigarettes and alcohol in most scenarios. Furthermore, many of the people who smoke marijuana on any regular basis also tend to like drinking coffee (Starbucks sort of crowd), reading books (Barnes & Noble sort of crowd) and/or not drinking or doing heavy drugs and losing one's sense of control and values etc. Many of them have respectable jobs in society and many of them aren't "trouble-makers" and/or "lazy bums". Well, if you don't like it when people claim it's "safe" to smoke marijuana then do you not like it when people claim it's "safe" to drive a car, because it's still a weapon/tool with consequences? Many studies show that marijuana is more beneficial for you than harmful - not limited to cancer victims - and it really does depend on a person's genetics. For people who smoke cigarettes but don't have the gene for lung cancer, it basically is safe for them yet for the people who have the gene, it's not even really "safe" to be around much second-hand smoke. For people with high tolerances of alcohol, it's relatively "safe" for them to have a few drinks but for people with low tolerances of alcohol, they could actually die from a few drinks.
Zarina Macha22 October 2017
All I said is that weed is still a drug and although it's clearly safer than heroin or acid it doesn't mean its 'safe' per se. Maybe that's just the people you know but the 'stoner' thing isn't a stereotype, weed does literally make people lazy and want to do fuck all. Yeah there are some people that become productive but generally because weed is a depressant as time goes on it reduces motivation and can inhibit dopamine therefore leading to depression and psychosis/schizophrenia in some cases. Not saying that happens to EVERYONE, and as I mentioned I am a recovering alkie and so I'm more biased towards drugs because I see more of the 'darker' affects of them through the people I'm with who are also recovering addicts. My ex was also a stoner and he'd sometimes hear voices in his head and he'd be really lazy and hardly want to do anything besides get high and laze around. Obviously if you smoke weed now and again and don't suffer from any preceding mental illnesses it's not necessarily going to have a bad effect on you, but if you smoke tons of weed everyday for years then clearly overtime the effects will become negative. Lazing around and doing nothing isn't as bad as smashing things up or getting arrested, but it's still not great to become a sloth who ends up not doing much.
#metoo and 'rape culture'
20 October 2017
15 comments
Unknown20 October 2017
i agree false rape claims are terrible, and i've seen a lot of people using #metoo to push regressive bs
Zarina Macha20 October 2017
Literally, like I read an article about some girl claiming she'd been 'technically raped' when she'd had drunk sex with a guy friend of hers. I think she'd done it reluctantly but from how she described it it didn't look like he'd 'forced' her in any way, in fact she described him as comforting her. Link here: https://totalsororitymove.com/literally-why-cant-i-say-metoo/ I mean some of it is awful like a grown man flashing his penis to a seven year old or her being in an (allegedly) abusive relationship. But if girls like this accused guys of 'technically raping' them when what happened wasn't rape, you just 'regretted' it, then all that's doing is putting innocent guys in prison. I also personally feel a bit offended when I see girls claim they've been 'assaulted' because a guy said hi to them on the street or some other insignificant shit and then think about the awful experience I had with my ex and cases of others I know who have been raped or assaulted. It just makes me feel like some feminists don't even care about actual rape victims, they just want to push forward the feminist agenda of 'rape culture' rather than actually helping women. (Needless to say and I will always be sure to mention this; I have no issue with feminists who actually do want to help actual victims and don't complain about every little thing and see it for what it is).
Sally20 October 2017
Of course cat calling is nothing like sexual assault or rape, however, it is still not acceptable behaviour. It is a sign of women being treated as sexual objects that only exist for the benefit of men therefore they have the right to treat them how they want. It is this norm followed by some in society that men can treat women how they like, that we are nothing but meat to them is what results in rape at the extreme end. Thats why it is rape culture. That's why you have stop behaviour like catcalling and groping and nip it in the bud before it develops into something more dangerous like abuse and rape. We are not men's playthings to be yelled at in the street, nor their playthings to be used in the bedroom.
Zarina Macha20 October 2017
What about the flip side of women 'objectifying' men or treating them like 'sexual objects'? Humans are naturally sexually attracted to each other and therefore 'objectify' each other because we admire the physical form of whomever we find attractive. I don't see the problem in that. I agree that cat-calling is rude but we can't 'police' human behaviour and make men stop being disrespectful to women on the street because it's not about men as a whole treating women badly, it's about some individuals treating other individuals badly. What about cases of women in bars yelling comments and stuff at men? What about women hitting on men who are clearly not interested and feel uncomfortable? As a woman I am guilty of this behaviour; men are generally receptive to my 'flirtatiousness' but I have been in a few cases where I've tried to hit on guys and they've been disinterested or uncomfortable. Naturally because I'm not a rapist and am aware that 'no means no' (for both genders), I don't aggressively or forcefully push guys into behaviour that they are uncomfortable with, but some women do it's just less talked about. (I believe the stats are 1 in 3 women are assault victims and 1 in 4 men). There are women out there that manipulate men for their money and emotionally and physically abuse them as well. I believe it's more empowering to tell a person that they can stand up for themselves against unwanted advances as opposed to tell them they're 'oppressed victims' leaving them powerless to do anything and just labelling it 'rape culture.' And technically we all 'use' each other in the bedroom. No of course women are not primarily here to please men and vice versa, but at the same time we are here to sexually please each other as the basics of any living mammal is pro-creation. When you're having sex with a man you are his 'plaything' in a way because you're 'playing' with each others bodies (not to get into the ins and outs - no pun intended). Sex is about pleasing and 'using' each other; obviously consensual healthy sex where both parties listen to each other's needs is very different from non-consensual or 'forced' sex where one person is just using the other and not listening to their needs.
Layla Stepford21 October 2017
If you're interested, I wrote a post on the Weinstein scandal and there are some links in there to some articles if you're interested in reading more about the case. My post isn't so much about the details of the case but the resulting questions surrounding this scandal: http://toughloveandcommonsense.blogspot.com/2017/10/questions-weinstein-scandal-raises.html I agree with the overall concept and most of the details in your post. Question: Do you consider it rape if a woman sees a guy who is wasted and puking everywhere and she grabs him and starts "turning him on" whilst he's lying there totally out of it - not giving consent? What if two people have been flirting with each other all night and they go back together and have sex and then one person wakes up with regret and does feel 'violated' yet clearly wanted the sex whilst it was happening? When a teacher rapes a student: The student is a minor and the teacher is an adult and authority figure. The adult is supposed to be responsible, even if the kid pushes it. I do think there should be two tiers; #1) for when it's proven that the kid was pushing it and #2) for when it's proven that the teacher forced it completely. I agree with your statements about groping. It's absolutely wrong, but it's not why we have jails. I completely agree with you about cat-calling. It's one thing to be 12 and cat-called by grown men; it's quite another to be 18+ and cat-called by other 18+ men. One thing about the clothing and relation to rape: That's usually to deal with "regret sex" claims; when a woman wears flirty clothes, gets drunk and sexually comes onto men and then gets mad the next morning when the guy says "thanks for the release last night. can you get out of here now?" And then she claims he raped her, and he tries to prove that she gave him *all* of the signs to have sex + consent. A lot of times when women wear sexual clothes like that *and* get drunk it *is* because they're looking for someone to hook up with, and that's the point of it. That she was looking for a hook up then regretted it; not that she deserved to be "raped".
Zarina Macha21 October 2017
I read the Weinstein post already a few days ago, thought it was really interesting but didn't have much to say in response cos I felt you'd explained everything well :) Of course it's exactly the same if a woman yanks down a guys trousers and starts sucking him or riding him and he's out of it. Actually I wrote a short story (entirely fictional) called 'when a woman rapes a man' that I'll post within the next few days. Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned the 'feeling violated' part. Just because you feel upset or violated about something, doesn't mean it equated to rape. Like I felt horribly upset about what happened to me with my ex but it wasn't anywhere near rape. As I mentioned, if you consented you consented. It makes me angry that some women have consensual sex with men whilst drunk and then get mad and cry rape the next morning. I would hope to never do such an immature and petty thing. It shows a total lack of responsibility for your actions. You got drunk and hooked up with a guy, maybe you wished you hadn't done it but it's done now, no point making it into a bigger deal than it needs to be.
Layla Stepford22 October 2017
Thank you for the compliment. :) I don't know if you're familiar with the Joyce McKinney story but aside from paying a man to knock her victim out and tie him up; the way she raped him was by forcing him to get turned on without his consent and then taking advantage of that as you said. I'll have to look for the article but that may have happened once at a party too with a guy who was semi-passed out but I'm fuzzy on the details. Thank you for clarifying about "feeling violated" vs. "giving consent in the moment". What if one partner says - whether truthfully or falsely - that they "don't remember" what happened and therefore "don't remember" giving consent but "don't think" they would've, as the other partner obviously claims they "did"?
Zarina Macha22 October 2017
Honestly I don't know. I mean that's the problem with drink or drugs and blacking out, you don't know what you did or what happened. Doesn't mean all drunk sex equates to rape, I just think people need to be careful.
Layla Stepford24 October 2017
If the first person chose to drink enough to black out in the first place, they willingly chose not to be sober enough to remember what happened though. So is it fair to ever punish the second person for something the first person can never prove?
Zarina Macha24 October 2017
I don't know I mean that's the thing it's one word against the others; like you could have been raped but if you don't remember then yeah it's just difficult.
Layla Stepford03 November 2017
But does the woman bear ANY responsibility whatsoever, for *choosing* to do drugs to the point of passing out and not being able to protect herself - especially if she chose to drink or do drugs in the first place and no one spiked her drink or anything?
Zarina Macha04 November 2017
It seems you're ignoring the power of drink and drugs - yeah people choose to do them but once the effect takes place you don't have much control and most people don't 'choose' to black out, it just happens as a result of drinking a lot because most people don't think when they're drinking they just drink. I mean I don't know because as I've mentioned many times it's hard for me to say this objectively because I don't know how normal people see drugs and alcohol so maybe that isn't true. There was a court case that I mentioned at the bottom of the article where a girl who was raped agreed with the judge that girls should protect themselves more in terms of how much they drink and how they dress when they go out. Doesn't mean it's their fault for being raped at all, no one ever says that, just means that taking precautions and safety first (as i mention at the bottom) is needed. So yeah to answer your question I do agree that people shouldn't put themselves in dangerous situations but we don't live in an ideal world and sometimes these things happen where people pass out and then sadly get taken advantage of.
Layla Stepford04 November 2017
I would love to know where you got the random idea that I am somehow "ignoring the power of drink and drugs" from as there is no evidence to suggest that whatsoever. It seems more to me like you're just ignoring personal responsibility and choice. If you choose to do a drug to the point of 'blacking out' then yes, you did choose to black out as you could've chosen to stop before it got that bad, or not do the drug to begin with. Actually, most people do think about how much they're drinking when they drink and they don't just keep drinking without any thought. Perhaps what you are describing is how alcoholics drink because they have a problem with that, but most people are actually aware of their body going through the changes of being sober, buzzed, drunk, etc. The "ideal world" argument has nothing to do with people making the choice not to get so inebriated that they black out. The "ideal world" argument is more accurately attributed to the fact that there will always be rapists. We can't change the fact that rapists will always exist and choose to rape but women CAN choose to not get so drunk or drugged up that they lose their sensibilities and control. So again I ask, do you believe the woman has ANY responsibility whatsoever, for *choosing* to do drugs to the point of passing out and not being able to protect herself - especially if she chose to drink or do drugs in the first place and no one spiked her drink or anything?
Zarina Macha04 November 2017
Well I already answered this, I said yes I do think the woman has a responsibility to not put herself in dangerous situations in the first place, referring to the little paragraph right at the bottom of the post where I was talking about what the judge said about women not putting themselves in dangerous situations in the first place, or making sure they have someone trustworthy to go back home with if they're completely wasted.
Layla Stepford06 November 2017
Linguistics can come off differently to different people. Agreeing that people *shouldn't put* themselves in dangerous situations, doesn't make it clear to me that you think the woman *bears responsibility* for putting herself in a dangerous situation. In the article the judge is talking about sex attacks. I wanted to ask where you stood on personal responsibility first in order to ask you my next question: Say a woman wakes up next to a stranger that she is not attracted to at all and can't believe she actually gave consent to this person. Do you think it is ever fair to prosecute that person if the woman accuses them of "rape", yet she doesn't actually remember anything that happened because she chose to get too drunk or drugged out to remember what happened? If he remembers and he says she gave consent, should his word hold more weight than hers since she admits she doesn't remember? My point is about what is considered a sex attack or not? If a woman is so drunk that she's literally throwing herself at the first guy who looks her way, is it his fault for saying "yes" to her advantages? Should he have to pay attention to whether or not she is more drunk than he is or not, in case she claims "rape" or "sex attack" the next morning when she regrets her decisions from the night before?
Game of Thrones and Religious Fanaticism
23 October 2017
2 comments
JesseHanson07 November 2017
good post
Zarina Macha07 November 2017
Thank you!
Least favourite films ever
24 October 2017
4 comments
Unknown25 October 2017
mu least favorite movie i've seen is "where the dead go to die" it did have some pretty disturbing imagery that unsettled me and i did find a few moments nice or actually kinda funny but aside from that it's garbage
Zarina Macha25 October 2017
Haven't seen it but now I know not to watch it :P
Unknown25 October 2017
smart girl
Zarina Macha26 October 2017
Hehe I try
Black women and weave
28 October 2017
2 comments
1 click dissertation review25 November 2017
Weave absolutely suits Black Women. I think it is one of the most amazing hairstyle out there. A friend of mine has a similar hairstyle and she looks amazing.
Zarina Macha25 November 2017
Interesting; I suppose the style of weave can make a difference.
The stupidest thing I've ever seen
29 October 2017
3 comments
Unknown30 October 2017
i like some of annas videos but her politics are ugh, and we already do teach boys don't rape some people are sick in the head
Zarina Macha30 October 2017
Literally, and most boys know not to rape anyway. And what about teaching women to respect men as well? Such a double standard.
Unknown30 October 2017
unfortunAtely a lot of society falls for this double standard
How do you identify?
31 October 2017
2 comments
Unknown01 November 2017
i identify as myself nothing more nothing less
Zarina Macha01 November 2017
A very good way to identify!
Love songs are lame
01 November 2017
2 comments
Unknown01 November 2017
i like some love songs but plenty do suck hard
Anonymous02 November 2017
"Be the change that you wish to see in the world" -Mahatma Gandhi
Discussing Characters on Jane the Virgin
02 November 2017
2 comments
Unknown03 November 2019
I actually love Magda. She's my favourite character even though she's evil. So underrated. Why does everyone love Rose and not her?
Zarina Macha08 November 2019
Haha, evil characters can sometimes be more fun. I have a soft spot for Cersei from GOT. I think fans prefer Rose because she is motivated by love, i.e. her love for Luisa - albeit a twisted, obsessive love. Makes it easier to relate to her, whereas Magda is purely motivated by greed and cruelty. Nothing redeeming about her to be honest.
Is Beyoncé a feminist role model?
06 November 2017
2 comments
Unknown06 November 2017
tbh idk and i find it hilarious some feminists whine and cry about beyonce choosing to wear sexy outfits on stage
Zarina Macha06 November 2017
Literally it's so silly
Destiny vs Coincidence
10 November 2017
3 comments
Unknown11 November 2017
personally i tend to air more on the no destiny side but i will admit i believe fate might exist to an extent
Anonymous12 November 2017
"But naturally, like attracts like, as are the laws of physics" Which laws do you mean?
Zarina Macha13 November 2017
I'm no expert on Physics but I'm pretty sure that Quantum Physics states that everything is made up of subatomic particles vibrating together in energy waves hence the phrase 'everything is energy and that's all there is to it.' As our thoughts and behaviours are also energy waves vibrating, whatever we put out we will attract - it's like if you have a magnet it attracts like objects. There's scientific evidence that meditation helps to improves people's lives due to positivity generating more positivity. Obviously this doesn't apply to everything, like five year old kids that get cancer didn't 'attract' that, it's just a genetic mutative disease.
Women have always been oppressed...?
12 November 2017
3 comments
Unknown12 November 2017
nice post, sure women have faced some historical injustices but they've also received special treatment
Zarina Macha12 November 2017
Cheers
Unknown12 November 2017
*toasts*
Film Review: Magic (1978)
12 November 2017
4 comments
Unknown13 November 2017
this film sounds great, also i think they parodied it on american dad (could be wrong)
Zarina Macha13 November 2017
Yeah they did! That's how I heard about it! The episode is called 'The Talented Mr Dingleberry.' It's creepy but humorous at the same time. I wondered what the references were and came across this film 'Magic' (that was several weeks ago) and then two nights ago I had a dream that I had a ventriloquist dummy and when I woke up it reminded me of this movie so I decided to watch it. Deffo worth watching - I know this post has a few spoilers but tbh I read the wikipedia page first before watching it and you can kind of tell what's going to happen anyway, it's just interesting watching it all unfold. It's a very interesting and good movie, plus it's not a 'big' film like Silence of the Lambs (haha). Anthony Hopkins is such a great actor!
Unknown13 November 2017
i love that episode
Zarina Macha13 November 2017
Saaame I just watched it again an hour ago XD
Are we slaves to technology?
14 November 2017
4 comments
Unknown15 November 2017
some people are, i mostly depend on online for the friendships i built with people online but i can go without (or minimal use) of online
Zarina Macha15 November 2017
Yeah I'd say it's best to have a balance, like utilize stuff online but don't over-indulge.
B. Dixon01 December 2017
Haha. I would agree to your opinion. We have our lives revolving around the new upgraded technology. But it is important to keep a balance between the two
Zarina Macha02 December 2017
Definitely!
Do you have healthy boundaries?
16 November 2017
3 comments
Unknown17 November 2017
great post, and i wonder if i am too sometimes
Zarina Macha17 November 2017
Thank you, it's always good to be self-aware
Unknown17 November 2017
yw and it is
What makes beauty?
20 November 2017
3 comments
Unknown21 November 2017
eh physical looks aren't everything and while i do enjoy eye candy i prefer people who are good people, i can't define beauty i just find pretty what i find pretty tbh
Arganise Campbell27 November 2017
This was a perfect post.
Zarina Macha27 November 2017
Aw thank you xx
Women aren't women anymore...?
21 November 2017
2 comments
Unknown21 November 2017
tbh i can kinda see why guys would like this idealized version of women from the 50s but you can't really expect women to just magically return to the 1950s and everything to be ok forever second wave feminism flourished cause women were unhappy with basically being pidgeonholed into just becoming wives and mothers people are a bit more complicated than that and i know a l;ot of tradcons will say "statistically women are happier as housewives" well statistically your safer without a gun in the house statistics can be twisted
Zarina Macha22 November 2017
Exactly, I mean if women want to be housewives they can be - feminism has pushed the narrative of careers being better but if a woman wants to be a stay at home mother or if she wants to have a career I would say nowadays there's deffo more choice and less negative stigma involved (as a result of the positive sides of feminism).
Can young people be in love?
25 November 2017
2 comments
Unknown25 November 2017
i think they can
Judy Pearson30 November 2017
I think yes, young people can be in love. There is no age to love. You can fall in love when your a kid, a teenager or an adult. It has no age limit.
Was Jesus Black?
28 November 2017
8 comments
Unknown29 November 2017
if Jesus was real. you forgot the family lineage to Moses ea. i'm white and have curly, wooly hair :) could i be related? but the Jesus depiction of a black dude with white hair is not possible because Jesus died rather young.
Zarina Macha29 November 2017
Ah yeah that makes sense about the white hair. Yeah I'm pretty sure Moses was a Hebrew too and fled to Egypt? I've seen 'The Prince of Egypt', one of my favourite films ever. (And the Hebrews are all depicted as black).
Anonymous29 November 2017
"Middle Eastern folk would not look like they do today because humans hadn't migrated to colder climates where their features would have changed" What do you mean by that? Do you think that humans hadn't migrated to Europe/Asia/America at the time of Christ?
Zarina Macha30 November 2017
I may have been incorrect there. I think I was assuming that 'interracial breeding' (for want of a better phrase) in the Middle East would not have occured on the level it has today hence why those living in the Middle East would have had darker skin. But perhaps I am wrong there. Either way though, assuming Christ was a real person, if he had fled to Egypt he would have had to blend in making him dark skinned as opposed to fair.
Anonymous01 February 2018
I think there are some errors in your post: 1. First of all, while Christianity could be used to justify slavery, it was Christian abolitionists that got slavery banned (even with a "white Jesus"). http://www.jubilee-centre.org/the-abolition-of-the-slave-trade-christian-conscience-and-political-action-by-john-coffey/ 2. "Hidden Colours" is pseudo-scientific/pseudo-historic. It is not a reliable source. This video has a decent deconstruction of it/the creator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odQOaKjddbo 3. Whilst depictions of Jesus have of course changed over the years, the rumour that "Cesare Borgia" was used as a stand in is unsubstantiated. The Snopes article you linked to even states as much, so I'm not sure why you included it as a source as it goes against the point you're trying to make. 4. "It is likely that this image of Christ as a European looking man (whether based off Borgia or not) was taken to Africa and held up as the shining example of ‘the white man’s God."- this assertion has no evidence to back it up. It seems you've come to the conclusion that Europeans "whitened" Jesus to justify their treatment of Africans, and then worked backwards to justify your conclusion. Jesus tends to look different around the world, depending on which culture draws him (see: http://picchore.com/people/chinesus/ ). 5. The King James Bible was released in 1611, not the 1500's as you stated. I don't know why you're making the point about how it was written though. Versions have been written before the KJV and after, in every language where Christianity exists. 6.The skin colour of Ancient Egyptians isn’t clear cut "they were black". The Egyptian civilisation lasted from roughly 3100bc to 30bc (when the Romans conquered them). The Romans were rulers when Jesus would have existed. In the 3000 years that they were autonomous they had been conquered several times as well (eg. Alexander the great of Macedonia in 332BC, leading to the Ptolemaic kingdom) http://bigthink.com/philip-perry/were-the-ancient-egyptians-black-or-white-scientists-now-know <---This is quite an interesting article on the topic 7. "Middle Eastern folk would not look like they do today because humans hadn't migrated to colder climates where their features would have changed". It's thought that humans first left Africa around 1.8 million years ago, so their features would have had time to change. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_human_migrations Also, Jesus was crucified by the Romans, a European civilisation from the Italian peninsula, further proof that we had indeed "migrated to colder climates". The existence of the Chinese civilisation (the Zhou dynasty during Christ’s time), native Americans, Indian civilisations, Inuit etc all prove the assertion wrong. I saw in a previous comment that you think that Middle-Eastern people are the result of "interracial breeding". That is also not the case, humans settled in the region and adapted, whilst others continued along and settled throughout Eurasia and on to the Americas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-modern_human_migration Cont---
Anonymous01 February 2018
8."Around that time period, Middle Eastern folk would have been dark skinned because that's how Hebrews looked like at the time" This reasoning doesn't make sense. Firstly, you've assumed that the ancient Hebrews were dark skinned, where’s your source? I've been unable to find anything concrete myself but it seems that they again would be "middle eastern" in appearance. Secondly, if the Hebrews were indeed dark skinned why would that automatically make the middle eastern people of the time dark skinned? It appears as though you're working backwards from your conclusion which has led to these inaccuracies. 9. "Adam and Eve were created naked. They would have had to be in a hot climate or they would have frozen" according to the bible they lived in the garden of Eden, a miraculous place that clearly doesn't follow the laws of science. 10."Early humankind resided in Africa" True. 11. "All of this points to the fact that the Abrahamic God was black, the original Hebrews were black" It doesn't. The original texts are thought to have been written around the sixth century BC (although some people think it could have been as early as the tenth century BC https://www.livescience.com/8008-bible-possibly-written-centuries-earlier-text-suggests.html ). Humans had long since left Africa at this point (as mentioned earlier), plus you aren't accounting for genetic diversity within the Hebrews. 12. "and Jesus Christ himself would also have had to be black" Why would he have to be black? You haven't shown this to be the case in the preceding paragraph (or, arguably throughout the entire blog post), how has this statement come about? Jesus was born in the middle east, to a Judean mother 1500 years after the death of Moses. Why would this make him black? 13. "When you burn something it goes black. The Bible has clearly referred to Christ as being a dark-skinned man" The passage you provided says he was like "highly polished brass burnt from a furnace" one way of taking this is that his skin was the colour of brass, which is smelted in a furnace (the book of revelation was written around 95AD http://richardwaynegarganta.com/TheDateoftheBookofRevelation.pdf and this article mentions the roman use of brass/how it produce it: https://www.thebalance.com/the-history-of-brass-2340176 by smelting it in a furnace (the word “burn” referring to the smelting process). This is relevant as the book of revelation was written in Roman controlled Judea around 95AD. Reading it in the manner you have still yields a "Middle Eastern" “hue”, as why would brass be used a frame of reference if they were trying to describe a black person? Surely there're other similes that could have been used to get the point across? "Burnt Brass" would suggest a darker, golden tone as opposed to "black". Also on a side note, doesn't brass melt instead of burning (giving further credibility to the idea that it’s describing the smelting process)? 14. "'woolly hair' describes hair that is not fine and straight like Europeans, but kinky and coiled like Africans" again this does not prove that he was black, as Europeans can have "kinky and coiled" hair too. Also, the quote you're referring to says: "his hair and head are white like wool" not that his hair is the texture of wool , but "white like wool" as though they’re using wool to describe the colour instead of the texture. Around 96AD wool was a common thing for the common man to come into contact with that was white, making it a good reference point when describing his hair colour. Why is it important that the common man understand? Who would the priesthood be trying to convert? The commoners, therefore the author/the priest needed reference points/metaphors that the commoners would understand. Cont----
Anonymous01 February 2018
15."The image of Jesus as a white man probably came about during the Slave Trade era, as the white aristocracy did not want black people to see God as a black man as that would have been counter-productive" Whilst there is logic to this idea, my previous point about different cultures depicting Jesus to look as they do holds true. "White" Jesus would have at least existed from when Constantine Christianised the Roman Empire around 312AD http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/christianityromanempire_article_01.shtml 16 "Even in The Autobiography of Malcolm X" why do you put "even in" as though Malcom X believing the Hebrews to be black counts as evidence to it being true? You should present the proof that swayed him. 17. "So to conclude, Christ (if he existed) was most likely a black man, as all the evidence points towards it" not to get harsh but what evidence? You haven't provided anything compelling. In fact one of your sources (the Snopes article) contradicts your assertions. If anything, if Jesus was real he would most likely have been "Middle Eastern" in appearance having been born to Judean parents at a time where immigration around the empire was minimal. I'm interested to hear your thoughts!
Zarina Macha08 February 2018
1. Christian Abolitionists weren't the only ones who got slavery banned. They may have contributed but it was mainly Lincoln and his government and other activists who contributed to getting rid of slavery. Plus saying Christian abolitionists helped to get rid of slavery doesn't digress from the fact that Christianity was used as an instrumental tool during the slave trade. http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/rights/abolition.htm 2. I need to look more into that. 3. I didn't actually agree that Christ was based off Borgia, just said that there are sites that claim he was and that it's unknown. However, as I mentioned, it's highly unlikely Christ would have looked like that so there probably was someone who his image was based off of. 4. The point I've been trying to make is that Eurocentric history holds Christ as a white man and that that was relevant in slavery in order to keep African-Americans into thinking they were inferior to black people. The most popular image of Christ is one of a white man, and as Britain colonised major parts of the world anyway, the image of Christ as a white man would be used as a reinforcement for the empire and the message of 'white being good, black being bad/poor.' (Not trying to sound like a social justice warrior and of course the world is different today, but no one can deny the ramifications of white imperialism and the effect it has had on third world countries. 'How Europe Underdeveloped Africa' by Dr Walter Rodney describes this well.) 5. Point is, that's the most famous and universally known version and again points back to my assertion of a European/white Jesus being used to enslave/colonise africans. 6. Egypt is in Africa so they would have been black; maybe not like charchoal but they would not have been 'light' skinned. That article says that there weren't many major genetic changes despite all of the different conquerers, so it's unlikely those invasions would have affected the colour of their skin much. 7. I admit I got that wrong and probably worded it incorrectly. 8 +. The Israelites would have been darker skinned because the region they were in was hot meaning they would have had more melanin in their skin. If Jesus journeyed to Egypt he would have had to blend in, plus as mentioned Ethiopia is mentioned right at the beginning of Genesis. ‘the name of the second river is Gihon, the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia’ When we think of Middle Eastern people today, they wouldn't necessarily have looked the same as we think of modern day Middle Eastern people. Also those Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians, and as the early Egyptians were not 'light' skinned it's unlikely the Hebrews would have been either. The reason there are so many Jews today of different skin colours is due to migration, which happened after the Jews were exhiled from their original homeland. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_diaspora https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/were-hebrews-ever-slaves-in-ancient-egypt-yes-1.5429843
What Game of Thrones says about humanity
01 December 2017
2 comments
Unknown01 December 2017
The amazon and central american rain forrests are not virgin creatures, scientists have shown they have been cut down before goingback thousands of years.
Zarina Macha01 December 2017
Oh I see, I think the scale they're being chopped now though is much worse than before?
Mental illness in Game of Thrones
10 December 2017
3 comments
top 10 essay writing sites29 December 2017
Mental illness in Game of Thrones is very well explained in your article and I must say you have such a great creativity in your work too. I loved reading your blog.
Zarina Macha29 December 2017
Aww thank you very much! I really love Game of Thrones and this post was fun to write!
Best essay writing service27 October 2018
I loved your "Mental illness in Game of Thrones " post. It is very interesting to read this post. Thank you so much for sharing this!. Looking forward for more excellent post.
The Origins of Christmas
11 December 2017
1 comment
frankie21 December 2017
Christmas is a special day for christians but as a muslim i also believe in hazrat Esa Alahe salam that he is the prophet of God. I think we must respect all the religions and their beliefs.
Gentrification: Pros and Cons
17 December 2017
1 comment
Unknown19 December 2017
eh i can kinda see both sides and i do feel bad for poor people that get priced out of their homes
Should prostitution be legal?
20 December 2017
2 comments
Manz20 December 2017
This was a good read Z! Thoroughly enjoyed it. Although I do think that people should be able to use their bodies in whatever fashion possible I don’t think prostitution should be legalised, only because prositues can find sexual health services for things like contraception as it is available to everyone not just the general public. In addition to this I also think that with prostitution even if it was legalised there would still be people would be exploitedly used if you know what I mean. However, I think if prostitution was legal there would be at least I hope there would be more support for them, in the sense that they will maybe get warmer clothes, and attacks against them taken a little more seriously. However, I believe it's people's attitudes towards prostitution that has to change rather than the law of you get what I mean. Because, even if something was legalised or considered illegal a person could still attack a sex worker whether or not it would be legal. As for pimps I do think that they would find out a way to exploit the girls and men as they are their source of income. I don't know if I explained myself properly but yeah these are my thoughts on the subject. Again amazing literature keep it up!!!
Zarina Macha20 December 2017
Thank you for your comment, glad you enjoyed the post! It is true that whether it was legal or not people could still attack or assault the sex workers, but then the sex workers would feel more comfortable reporting to the police and it would be classed as violence at work. Of course there's no way to prevent people from entirely exploiting others, but at least under human and work rights protection workers of all professions are protected under the law, so this would also apply to sex workers.
The Crisis of Masculinity
23 December 2017
2 comments
Unknown23 December 2017
nice article
Zarina Macha23 December 2017
Gracias
Why Moana is one of Disney's best films
17 January 2018
2 comments
Anonymous17 January 2018
*because. Not "cos"
Zarina Macha18 January 2018
How pedantic of you XD
Celebrity Deaths
06 February 2018
4 comments
Unknown08 February 2018
it's sad when well loved celebs die and people that go ott about it probaly tied up a lot of their existence in that celeb
Unknown14 February 2018
It is very similar to when people go bonkers when their favorite football team wins or loses... People overly identify themselves with celebs, sports teams, etc.
Zarina Macha15 February 2018
Yeah I get that element of it; identifying yourself a lot with a particular famous person.
Zarina Macha15 February 2018
I think it's best not to take it too much to heart though, like if you love a football team sure it's sad if they win and great if they lose but it's not the be-all-and-end-all of your life. Nothing wrong with identifying with someone, I think I'm more saying some people take it way too far.
Game of Thrones vs Lord of the Rings
28 March 2018
2 comments
Barry08 June 2018
Nice one! This is a great comparison! When people say GOT would exist without LOTR, I think people are referring to the fact that many of these mystical creatures were sort of invented by Tolkien. He appears to be the first to cook up a fantasy of this nature. Many videogames are also given the same stamp of it being born as a result of LOTR - eg: Elder Scrolls, Warcraft, etc. And, hey, there is no harm in following through in a path someone started ages ago. I'm sure there was that first Sci Fi novel ever, somehow the world doesn't tend to give today's Sci Fi films the same treatment :)
Zarina Macha08 June 2018
Thank you so much and yeah, Tolkien was the one who popularised mythical creatures and high fantasy. All art to a degree is inspired by past art. With Sci-Fi, books like Brave New World, 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 all have clear influences and similarities within each other. What do you mean by the world not giving Sci-Fi the same treatment? Do you mean that we accept all Sci-Fi works in their own right and don't compare them in the same way we do with the Fantasy genre?
Vicky Angel: A metaphor for schizophrenia?
27 April 2018
2 comments
YEAHH14 February 2025
I just finished the book and to me it felt unresolved. However from this angle it makes more sense. good points made
zarinamacha04 September 2025
Thank you!
Facebook's False Friendship
20 May 2018
2 comments
Anonymous20 May 2018
I don't see the problem with having acquaintances to see from time to time, or people that only chat online. Close friends usually happen to be a mere handful of people, ideally quality over quantity. It isn't healthy to put value on how many friends one has or likes etc, so I think that's what can be detrimental to mental health for certain people.
Zarina Macha20 May 2018
I agree, there's nothing at all wrong with having acquaintances. I think facebook can give a false sense of illusion though about who your real friends are, particularly to those who are more emotionally vulnerable.
Lara Croft is a feminist's wet dream
07 June 2018
2 comments
M04 September 2020
Lol, and you'd think that feminists would like a beautiful, intelligent, wealthy, well educated, highly trained, multifaceted, baddass.....etc. lol woman being portrayed in media. She's amazing, a bloody one woman army outwitting countless paramilitary groups with her skillsets....guess not
zarinamacha04 September 2020
Haha I know right? It's ridiculous that feminists like Anita Sarkeesian look down on her because she is portrayed as beautiful and sexually desirable. Is also very hypocritical, as it reduces Lara Croft down to her physical appearance and ignores all of her positive traits and personality, which surely is what feminists are supposed to be against doing.
Why is the human body X-Rated?
31 August 2018
2 comments
Chris Guggenheimer05 October 2018
First of all it is really men that sexualize the female body. As even one women pointed out. Men unlike women are visual. A man is wired to be sexually stimulated at the sight of a nude women. However some people have more control over it. You want your body to be fully appreciated a visit to a nudist colony would help. I visited one. It was nice to be around a large group of nudists and feel comfortable. My other guess is that we live in a world where we are clothed. So we do not grow up seeing nude bodies. Actually in Europe there is far more acceptable nudity then in the US. So if a tribe is used to being nude then i am sure the men look at different things to get them turned on. A number of years ago i saw a national geographic show on channel 13 where every one in this tribe were completely nude. Every one. I guess everything is relative.
Zarina Macha05 October 2018
Yeah men are much more visual than women and much more aroused by images (women can be visual too, just not as much as men, and typically require more contextual stimuli whereas a man can simply be aroused by images of breasts. This is why Playboy was a much more popular newspaper than Playgirl, of which half of its readers were gay men). I would be intrigued to visit a nudist colony XD sounds fascinating. Well one of the articles I linked at the bottom mentioned that when people get used to seeing nude bodies they become less of a big deal. e.g. when you're in a relationship with someone you get used to seeing them naked so it becomes normal. You're sexually attracted to your partner - obviously - but you also like them for their personality and companionship.
Cersei Lannister: A Complex Villain
10 September 2018
2 comments
Binacular11 September 2018
nice article !! http://bit.ly/2NsluWV game of thrones
Zarina Macha12 September 2018
Haha cheers; I've read this :) I don't actually believe Tyrion is 'in love' with Dany - deffo think he loves her but more in that he admires and respects her and believes she's the best hope for the iron throne. He's almost fatherly to her (that's my interpretation anyway). But yeah deffo got that he is worried that Dany and Jon Snow having a relationship will affect their greater goal, and that it will create awful problems in the long run. Can't wait for Season 8!
University wasn't for me.
25 September 2018
6 comments
Unknown26 September 2018
Great post. As you noted yourself, I'm willing to bet you've learned a lot more from the last couple of years than could ever be summed up in a grade. It's important not to let a grade define you or your craft.
Unknown26 September 2018
This was relatable as well as inspiring thank you for sharing <3
Zarina Macha26 September 2018
Thank you! And absolutely.
Zarina Macha26 September 2018
No problem hun xx
Anonymous04 October 2018
A delightful read--thank you. It inspires a number of thoughts... which, I suppose, is one of the things it was meant to do. I'll try to give you some of them later (and probably in a different venue).
Zarina Macha04 October 2018
Thank you very much, I'm glad you liked it!
Four of The Greatest TV Shows of Our Time
20 October 2018
4 comments
Unknown21 October 2018
Breaking bad. Good article!
Zarina Macha21 October 2018
Thank you :)
Unknown03 November 2018
Thrones best thing in human history.
Zarina Macha03 November 2018
YES!!!
Why I dislike my species
11 January 2019
2 comments
Unknown05 February 2019
Loved it. Must sub to your blog immediately. TNQ
Zarina Macha05 February 2019
Thank you!
On Spiritual Oneness
23 February 2019
4 comments
Anonymous24 February 2019
Hypocritical much?
Zarina Macha24 February 2019
Why hypocritical? Changing and evolving your points of view while acknowledging where you may have been wrong in the past isn't hypocrisy, it's evolution and growth imo.
Kirbinator26 February 2019
Interresting point of view. Personally I don't believe in any spirituality, I think 90% of all that stuff is psychological.
Zarina Macha26 February 2019
Thanks for commenting man! Yeah I mean it is psychological in that it's about how we relate to things in our mind, and how we choose to mentally tap into our sense of inner being. It has been proven scientifically that meditation is good for the mind and the body, and that it helps to keep people calm and healthy. https://www.self.com/story/mindfulness-meditation-health-benefits
Women vs 'Toxic Masculinity'
14 March 2019
2 comments
W07 July 2021
"There are positive and negative behaviours associated with both femininity and masculity". True. "Power, strength, protectiveness and assertion are traits that women find attractive because they emulate a feeling of security." I don't see protectiveness in Christian Grey. Protectiveness is a great thing but why somehow attribute it to men who are not above abuse their own women? It destroys the meaning of such beautiful word. Of course protectiveness has something to do with not being complete pacifist. But you can not be complete pacifist and be kinder to your women as Christian. Also it's important to point out that not every toxic man is traditionally masculine. Men with traditionally feminine personalities can be toxic just like woman with traditionally masculines one too. There are pretty elf-like guys in fiction who are toxic without being masculine( neither physically or personality-wise) in fiction and it's not uncommon for them to have female fans and defenders.
zarinamacha10 September 2021
When I wrote the line 'power, strength, protectiveness' etc I was simply describing traits that women typically find attractive. I completely agree though that being 'protective' in a positive way doesn't really apply to Christian Grey. I remember there were times in Twilight when Edward would randomly show up to 'rescue' Bella out of trouble. One may see that as protectiveness but in reality there was a form of control and possession there because he was following her around and tracking where she was going as well as coming into her room to watch her sleep etc. 'Not every toxic man is traditionally masculine' -- oh I 100% agree. I was specifically referring to how toxic men in these romance stories (e.g. Cullen, Grey, Rochester) tend to exhibit traits that some feminists may chastise as 'hyper-masculine' yet these traits are viewed as desirable by women. Another example is 'alpha males' in romance who display 'hyper-masculine' qualities, yet again these books are being eaten up by the women who clearly love to read about these types of men, despite their behaviour being in line with 'toxic masculinity.' There are definitely both toxic elements of both femininity and masculinity. For example, psychological manipulation is a much more toxically feminine trait as it is associated with being more calculated and less 'in your face' than physically abusing someone (which is a more typically masculine behaviour). This also relates to how in schools, young girls tend to use relational or indirect bullying such as spreading secrets behind other girls' back or excluding other girls from games.
An Interview with CM Fritzen
01 August 2019
2 comments
M.H. Elrich01 August 2019
Great interview!
Zarina Macha01 August 2019
Glad you like it!
A Culture of Self-Deprecation
05 October 2019
4 comments
Kirbinator09 October 2019
Heya, been a while since we had contact hasn't it? ^^ Just wanted to say I agree fully. I like to make fictional characters and one of them is exactly all about self confidence.
Zarina Macha09 October 2019
Hey mate! Glad you liked the post, and that's really cool! What kind of fictional characters? In a cartoon, or stories?
Kirbinator09 October 2019
Stories mostly because of the fact i'm not good at drawing, heheh. Well the character i'm talking about is a Purple alien girl named Purpur. She is onlt 148 cm tall and 20 years old but she has adventures hopping from planet to planet and. While small and weak her determination (and support from high technology) helps her do great things.
Zarina Macha10 October 2019
That honestly sounds so cool! If you ever want someone to have a look at your stories and give some feedback, feel free to shoot me an email? info@zarinamacha.co.uk
How Feminism Has Lied to Women and Men
15 August 2020
4 comments
Laura24 August 2020
Wow this is such a great article and it takes a lot of courage to voice these views publicly so I applaud you. So many points are spot on and really resignated with me personally having had experienced some of these things. Mostly that I can't have a healthy and respectful discussion with feminists as it results in being negatively labelled and personally attacked. It would be great if feminists become more open to discussion and hopefully this is a step in the right direction. 👏 Please continue posting more! ❤️
zarinamacha24 August 2020
Thank you so much for your comment, and I am very glad you liked the article and could relate to it. I think it is important to keep the general discourse of information around social issues and feminism as varied as possible.
Lou08 December 2021
As a forty year old mother of 2 girls, you have a lot to learn. It will be interesting to hear your perspective in 20 years. Even reading your article briefly I can count a number of inconsistencies in your piece.
zarinamacha08 December 2021
Hello, thank you for your comment. What inconsistencies did you notice?
Why It's So Hard to Discuss Social Issues Nowadays
21 August 2020
2 comments
Shreya Vijay25 August 2020
One of the most beautiful thing about your writings are that they are controversial but true. You never shy away from voicing your opinion and always stand by what you believe. I completely agree with everything you said in this article. Especially Feminism!!! Oh god! Feminism is poison! I know, being a women myself, it might sound a bit absurd, but I don't really agree with the concept of Feminism because these days, it is more about establishing women as the superior species rather than getting equality for them. I loved how you threaded threaded this piece and have given all your readers a lot to think about. You are a strong women, Zarina and I am so proud of you and this blog post! :)
zarinamacha25 August 2020
Thank you so much for your wonderful response, it almost made me tear up. I am just glad to provide a platform for opinions that deviate from mainstream media. The feminist movement doesn't really care about women, because it claims that gender is 'socially constructed' and refuses to celebrate and examine the very real genuine biological and hormonal differences between men and women. So it actually makes more sense for a woman to reject it (but because it has been marketed as 'the women's movement', it tries to claim to be in favour of all women, rather than specifically feminist women). There is a book I am currently reading called 'The Female Brain'; I had a look at some of the reviews on Goodreads, and unsurprisingly, the feminists who read it didn't like it because it asserts that men and women have hormonal and chemical differences. Ironically, it is a very pro-women and pro-feminine book, because it highlights some of the unique qualities that the female brain possesses (e.g. women's skills in communication, empathy, and recognizing facial expressions and emotional cues). If feminism was really about celebrating being female and the feminine essence, then it would gladly champion such a book, but instead it belittles it. It's also really hard for women to outwardly reject feminism because there is so much pressure to conform to it, and most of us don't really get educated on the feminist movement or its origins. On some of my older blog posts, I engaged in a lot of discussion with a woman who studied up on the feminist movement and women's history. I didn't initially agree with all of what she said, but I was very willing to hear her perspective, and I actually did my own research (including reading 'The Flipside of Feminism' by Suzanne Venker and Phyllis Schlafly, which is a great book for truly understanding the feminist movement). Now I am super thankful for her helping to educate me on feminism without being condescending or 'overly offended' at me having different opinions.
JK Rowling and Political Wokeness Gone Mad
23 September 2020
2 comments
Tommy M22 November 2020
Great article! I definitely feel like jk Rowling gets an absurd amount of hate from the woke crowd who just scream transphobic at the top of their lungs without any real evidence to back it up.
zarinamacha22 November 2020
Thank you, I wish more people would look at evidence before making judgements on things.
Stop Looking at Your Phone
21 October 2020
1 comment
celeb networth23 April 2021
Thank you for the advice!
Re-Addressing Black Lives Matter
25 November 2020
2 comments
Allan Maclellan25 November 2020
About time someone spelled out the real issues. Thanks Zarina :)
zarinamacha25 November 2020
No worries!
Maleficent vs Sleeping Beauty
30 November 2020
4 comments
Lynn Brown01 December 2020
I love to watch Maleficent character in movies. She's fun to watch.
zarinamacha02 December 2020
She certainly is!
celeb networth01 March 2021
Angelina Jolie is so beautiful~
zarinamacha02 March 2021
I don't disagree xD
Feminist Fragility
06 December 2020
2 comments
Fidelbogen07 May 2021
This article is excellent, and I look forward to exploring more of your blog. I have had my head in the anti-feminist game for near 20 years, and I think I was the first to weaponize the word "non-feminist" as political semantics. I have written a book of 551 pages, called "The Counter-Feminist Essays", which summarizes most of my thoughts on feminism, and lays out nearly all you need to know to take feminism down. After I have finished the second edition, I will provide a link to it. ~Fidelbogen~
zarinamacha07 May 2021
Thank you for your thoughts! Your book sounds really interesting and relevant, I will definitely check it out when you have finished the 2nd ed! I consider myself a 'non-feminist' because it sounds a lot less antagonistic than 'anti-feminist', so that's my personal preference.
Cuties and the Sexualization of Children
10 December 2020
2 comments
things to do17 January 2024
Things are getting worse with the exploration of Tiktok now. Sometimes I wonder the media is the cause or the media just portraying the real life of children now (I mean kids love copying adults), or both.
zarinamacha04 September 2025
Indeed, it's probably to do with social media and the way in which information is so accessible now. Kids are definitely exposed to too much too soon now.
Reviewing Troubled Blood
21 December 2020
2 comments
Anonymous21 December 2020
Hi this is Bri from Weepy"s Corner (weepyscorner.wordpress.com)! Thank you for linking my review into your review.
zarinamacha21 December 2020
No worries!
2020: Closing Thoughts
31 December 2020
27 comments
Terri Hebert01 January 2021
2020 was a horrible year except for one bright spot. My youngest son got married right before the pandemic started. I have high hopes for 2021 !
Tiara01 January 2021
Honestly for me 2020 has of been very bad! Obviously me and my family couldn't do the things we hoped and which we would normally do but we were lucky compared to many others who lost their jobs and skipping meals! We had a lot of quality family time which would not have been possible if this had not happened, so I guess was not as bad as it was for many others.
Tiara01 January 2021
*....me 2020 has not been very.... *.....lost their jobs and were skipping meals!..... *.....so I guess it was not as bad as it was for many others. Sorry for the mistakes
pattymele336301 January 2021
For me 2020 was a nuissance with always when out wear a mask. My husand had to go overseas for a job and was quarinteed. And had to work remotely from home
zarinamacha01 January 2021
That's amazing, congratulations to him!
Lynn Brown01 January 2021
I've enjoyed spending more time with my immediate family. Thanks for the chance.
zarinamacha01 January 2021
It's very true that the horrors of 2020 have made those of us who have families and food feel more blessed and grateful for what we have. But yes, it is awful to think of those who lost their jobs and whose family members passed away due to the virus. Hopefully 2021 will bring goodness and prosperity for you!
zarinamacha01 January 2021
Yeah the masks are uncomfortable and a bit annoying. I hope you weren't separated from your husband for too long, that sucks.
zarinamacha01 January 2021
That's really lovely and you're welcome :D
Christina bateman01 January 2021
It's been hard on our family me and my husband got married in January 2020, since this pandemic I have not been able to change my last name or I have been waiting for ss to send the paperwork to change my name lol. My daughter is expecting her third kid in February. So, even though it has been a long rough year, me and my husband have had more time together. We watched movies and cooked together and went rock hunting in our area. I am hoping this new year to be more prosperous and seeing our new grandbaby on video chat. I hope you had yours have a better year ahead. Keep writing books, I have found new authors and books to read.
Andrea Stoeckel01 January 2021
202, the year of "cancel culture": the trip to NYC, the trip to RI...all canceled. But we're here, we're safe, we love each other! We're #nytough
zarinamacha01 January 2021
Haha 'cancel culture' is so stupid! And sorry to hear your New York trip was cancelled, I'm sure you'll get to go another time. I would love to visit New York some day :D
zarinamacha01 January 2021
I'm so glad that you and your husband had lots of amazing times together. I'm sure you didn't bank on starting your marriage in such strange circumstances lol. Thank you for the message r.e. my books, I am glad you found some new reads! Reading is definitely an amazing thing to do during these tough times.
gypsyarj01 January 2021
I have been dealing with some health issues and was told just before the pandemic that not only did I need surgery but physical therapy for some of what I've been dealing with. I have bad asthma so my personal doctor was telling me to limit going out so my anxiety was up about everything. Yet my hands were one of the primary issues I was having. Everyone needs their hand right? So I added new meds so I could go have 2 surgeries one on each hand. Did therapy at home on my own lol I had my brother come stay with me which he didn't mind because his current room mates had added family to their place for quaratine. So the first time since we lost our mother we binded together during this pandemic in survival mode. My brother is a grocery store dept head so he stocks the groceries at his little store chain. I had things on hand from when our mother was alive that I used to keep her healthy likes santizer, wipes and clorox. So I made sure he had what he needed when he was out. The stories he had when he came home smh. What I'm taking from 2020 is learning experiences ONLY. Take care of those you love and always make sure they know how you feel for them. Make sure you have a supply of certain items on hand that you can need in times of quarantine. Also everyone should band together because that's how we'll end up getting through this.
Latifa Morrisette02 January 2021
2020 was hard on my family, particularly the end. I hope that 2021 is a lot better.
Jerrianne Ray02 January 2021
I have copd and am 63 and have been out of my house only once since March and that was to get a flu shot. We lost my mom September of 2019 and I haven't been able to see as much of my dad as I wanted. My brother had to have emergency abdominal surgery in August and haven't been able to see him either. I am so very grateful for messenger in keeping in touch with my family. 2021 has got to be better. I miss my family so very much.
Catrina Pomerleau02 January 2021
2020 was a rough year for everyone. It's been difficult to adjust to all the isolation. Here's to hoping that 2021 allows us to get back to a more normal way of life.
Meredith W02 January 2021
2020 was a tough year for everyone. I haven't gone anywhere since quarantine started but I'm glad I'm able to chat with my family. I hope 2021 is better than last year.
zarinamacha03 January 2021
Same here, and being able to chat to family is a blessing!
zarinamacha03 January 2021
Definitely :D
zarinamacha03 January 2021
I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope things get better for you soon, and am sure that you will be able to see family in 2021.
zarinamacha03 January 2021
Same!
zarinamacha03 January 2021
That's a really beautiful takeaway, the importance of banding together and looking out for one's loved ones. Sorry to hear about your physical difficulties. At least you were able to see your brother and have supplies to hand. I guess the good thing about being human is our ability to adapt to tough situations, and it sounded like you handled this very well.
isabell01yahoocom04 January 2021
2020 was a year that I would like to forget. I didn't work for over half of it due to being furloughed. But since I still technically had a job, my state said I didn't qualify for the covid unemployment. So yeah......
Victoria Weston05 January 2021
2020 for me has had its ups and downs and without my family and the book communities I would have been lost. I've been okay one minute and down full of anxiety the next. But let's hope we can pull through and come out the other side. Thanks so much. Happy New Year. Keep Safe
zarinamacha06 January 2021
Oh that sucks. I hope things will be better for you in 2021.
zarinamacha06 January 2021
Thank you for sharing, and stay safe!
Rating TV Show Endings
27 January 2021
15 comments
ivylynnolson01 March 2021
Most favorite is DEFINITELY The Good Place. As much as it killed my heart when it ended, they did it so beautifully and it really honored the integrity of the series. My least favorite is 100% My So Called Life. I know it ended because the series was cancelled, but COME ON, MAN!!! What a tear-jerking heartbreak that was!
M'liss01 March 2021
Sometimes when so ends it sad and usually it ends good sometimes they do not end well. I guess life in every way!!!
Lisa Sanetra01 March 2021
Best TV Show Ending:-MASH- After 11 years on the air, "M*A*S*H" lived up to expectations in its series finale. In the end, the characters finally get to go home, but that also means they won't be together anymore. It's a bittersweet ending that forever changed what a series finale for a TV show can be, because it doesn't always have to be the happiest ending possible. Worst TV Show Ending-Friends- Ross and Rachel's rocky, will-they-won't-they relationship was the center of "Friends" and its finale (and many episodes that came before it). Unfortunately, the finale's focus on whether or not they end up together was a bit annoying considering it was obvious that they would from the start of the show.Their story in the finale meant mediocre subplots for all the other characters.
Laura02 March 2021
I agree that MASH had the best ending to a TV series! But then, MASH raised the bar for television drama in many respects.
zarinamacha02 March 2021
"The Good Place" had a beautiful ending <3 such an amazing show! And it always sucks when a TV show is cancelled and never gets to be wrapped up properly. That happened with "The Hard Times of RJ Berger."
zarinamacha02 March 2021
I must watch this show someday...
zarinamacha02 March 2021
Bittersweet endings are usually the best imo when it comes to dramas. Not too idealistic and happy but not depressing either, just nice and hopeful. I agree that the "Friends" Ross and Rachel plot gets very dry after a while. I've dipped in-and-out of "Friends", seen episodes and seasons here-and-there but it's never really grabbed me as a show I would watch rigorously from start-to-finish. I find it a bit too cliche and predictable, although it is deffo fun easy watching. The Ross/Rachel dynamic annoyed me because I find Ross irritating and whiny as a character. I assume he grows by the end but their whole dynamic just seems unhealthy and toxic to me whereas Monica and Chandler have a much healthier and mature dynamic. The Take did a fascinating YouTube video on Ross actually if you're interested in watching: https://youtu.be/VwPGtn9qJZ4
jstieg02 March 2021
Favorite: MASH and Game of Thrones Least Favorite: Dexter and The Sopranos
Sophie02 March 2021
Favorite: NCIS and Blacklist Least Favorite: The Office and The Big Bang Theory
Latifa Morrisette03 March 2021
My least favorite was Castle. It felt like it was a rushed ending. My favorite was Buffy
Catrina Pomerleau04 March 2021
Favorite: MASH Least Favorite: Castle
zarinamacha05 March 2021
FINALLY, SOMEONE ELSE WHO ENJOYED THE ENDING OF "GAME OF THRONES"!!!!! XD The ending of "Dexter" really sucked. And I can understand not liking "The Sopranos" ending, it was definitely abrupt.
zarinamacha05 March 2021
What didn't you like about "The Big Bang Theory" ending? Sheldon's quick five minutes of redemption didn't undo all of the years of arsehole-ness he bestowed upon his friends? XD XD
zarinamacha05 March 2021
Not seen either of those shows although I would love to watch "Buffy" some day. Rushed endings definitely suck.
zarinamacha05 March 2021
I clearly need to watch this show "MASH", had never heard of it until now!