When Boy Meets Girl...
Many a concept has been born in the 21st Century; emoji, memes, the dreaded YOLO among other detestable shortened words ('Totes' and 'Perf' are other particular words that make me want to shove my head in a brick wall). One concept in particular that has become well and truly overused of late is that the 'friendzone'. Search for posts and memes about the friendzone and you will be supplied with a bountiful quantity. But to quote EJ Dickson, "the friend zone needs to die". In conjunction with thoughts of my own, Dickson states that the said zone is sexist, lazy and removes responsibility from those who claim it. I feel it reaches further than Dickson's article, which you can find here.
The friendzone, if not already understood, is typically known as the state of a relationship where one person has developed strong feeling towards the other, demonstrates interest in the other person, but winds up with the request that they want to be "just friends". The following response is for the rejected person to take to the Internet, the incredibly large realm where it is supposed that people care about these petty complaints, and seek pity for their unrewarded and under appreciated efforts to further their intended relationship. This alone is a despicable show of character, or lack thereof. Where this concept gets worse is that it is most commonly thought of in terms of a male friend pursuing a female friend, only to be labelled as "the friend".
It's likely obviously by now that I am female, and while I'm not an active or particularly vocal feminist, I do find this unequal display of responsibility particularly irritating, though not for the same reasons as Dickson.
My "beef" with this concept is that responsibility has not been taken by the offended party and therefore cast the blame and shame onto the unsuspecting second party. Quite frankly, I view attempts at viewing a relationship as such: if a person wishes to further a relationship with someone they have feelings for, they will ask them. If they are successful, then all is chirping birds, streamers and balloons. If their interest does not reciprocate, then the first person takes the sad reality and moves on with their life to find someone who will reciprocate. Pretty simple, right?
Apparently, the 21st Century has not only brought digital technology to make people slack, but entire concepts too. It would seem that this zone is the equivalent to a victim in a robbery and a scam. They claim they are innocent, that they have lost something of great worth, that they were 'used' and taken for granted, and that there should be some compensation. If I understand correctly, just because a person is asked out by a friend doesn't mean they have to accept. If a person is not comfortable taking a friendship to the next level, then so be it. It takes two to be in a relationship, not one selfish, whinging twit. So no, I have little compassion to those of the friendzone. In fact, this is my message to the people of the 'friendzone': you are not there. You only think you are there. Really, you are only in a state of denial, irresponsibility, immaturity and laziness. Just because you want someone doesn't mean you will always get what you want. They have a choice too. They didn't feel they wanted to take a relationship further with you, so get over yourself. Self confidence is great, but when you insist someone else sees the same in you, that's being arrogant. No wonder you were rejected.
The friendzone, if not already understood, is typically known as the state of a relationship where one person has developed strong feeling towards the other, demonstrates interest in the other person, but winds up with the request that they want to be "just friends". The following response is for the rejected person to take to the Internet, the incredibly large realm where it is supposed that people care about these petty complaints, and seek pity for their unrewarded and under appreciated efforts to further their intended relationship. This alone is a despicable show of character, or lack thereof. Where this concept gets worse is that it is most commonly thought of in terms of a male friend pursuing a female friend, only to be labelled as "the friend".
It's likely obviously by now that I am female, and while I'm not an active or particularly vocal feminist, I do find this unequal display of responsibility particularly irritating, though not for the same reasons as Dickson.
My "beef" with this concept is that responsibility has not been taken by the offended party and therefore cast the blame and shame onto the unsuspecting second party. Quite frankly, I view attempts at viewing a relationship as such: if a person wishes to further a relationship with someone they have feelings for, they will ask them. If they are successful, then all is chirping birds, streamers and balloons. If their interest does not reciprocate, then the first person takes the sad reality and moves on with their life to find someone who will reciprocate. Pretty simple, right?
Apparently, the 21st Century has not only brought digital technology to make people slack, but entire concepts too. It would seem that this zone is the equivalent to a victim in a robbery and a scam. They claim they are innocent, that they have lost something of great worth, that they were 'used' and taken for granted, and that there should be some compensation. If I understand correctly, just because a person is asked out by a friend doesn't mean they have to accept. If a person is not comfortable taking a friendship to the next level, then so be it. It takes two to be in a relationship, not one selfish, whinging twit. So no, I have little compassion to those of the friendzone. In fact, this is my message to the people of the 'friendzone': you are not there. You only think you are there. Really, you are only in a state of denial, irresponsibility, immaturity and laziness. Just because you want someone doesn't mean you will always get what you want. They have a choice too. They didn't feel they wanted to take a relationship further with you, so get over yourself. Self confidence is great, but when you insist someone else sees the same in you, that's being arrogant. No wonder you were rejected.
Cosmetic Hope
It was Father's Day recently in the U.S. and a favourite YouTuber's wife (who is publishing on YouTube and on a blog - http://www.thedailyhopeful.com/) posted a gorgeous message to all the fathers. She referenced another blog (http://huff.to/1nXkCVx.) where a father had written an honest letter to his 4-year old daughter that he'll give to her when she's older.
He wrote about how she would need to ignore the abusive turbulence of the world, remain true to her character and love herself.
The whole letter is moving and I can only hope that other daughters who are yet to realise the same things, or who don't have a father to tell them, will read it and find a way to use his words. (My apologies for the long sentence)
Part of his message was expressing concern of the ideas the cosmetics aisle of department stores present to women. He turned the judgemental phrases from labels, such as "age-defying", "infallible" and "go naked", amongst others, into uplifting statements to encourage his daughter and other women. I am referencing this article because I too recently considered this part of modern Western culture that imprints on the psyche of women, even regarding the level of feminism in society.
How is it that in an era of the supposedly most advanced technology and knowledge, the pressure for women to present themselves with their best enhancements is continually high? Admittedly, it is obvious I don't use make-up. I don't have the time or energy to care about it and am perfectly comfortable with my natural appearance, and that is natural in the true sense.
But of course I noticed the unspoken request (bordering on demand) for fellow females and I to don the slightly altered mask of make-up. As I've pondered this chain over the year of high school past, I have come to realise a confusion with the issue. It is something touched on periodically and while I've heard it before, only now is it hitting home that the insane pressure for synthetic perfection originates mainly from women themselves. Sure, there will be men who will voice their preference for a girl with her "face on" (as my mum would term it), but other than them, the push for the temporary change in appearance comes from the combined effort of women and cosmetics companies.
A paradigm has evolved that suggests that it is almost the way of nature for women to apply their make-up and that it is a requirement for them to be socially, academically, financially and emotionally successful.
At my statement of "nature", some might argue that as humans (and technically, animals) part of our primal engineering is to make ourselves appealing in order to attract a partner. That is correct to a certain extent of our behaviour since the currently re-occurring opinion of most men is that they prefer to see a woman without make-up and are happy with the appearance.
Granted the ancient Egyptians developed the early forms of cosmetics, many people have been sucessful over the years without using it. Then, from a biblical stand-point, why would we require cosmetics when we are capable of achieving the attraction feat with our (and I regret the overuse) naturally born appearance?
My main annoyance is with how it goes against the ethos of feminism. Women are now, more than ever, aware support what they understand of feminism, which sadly isn't usually very much. The cosmetic conundrum is one of those.
Feminism aims to develop complete equality for women according to the long standing and gradually broken traditions of male dominance. It aims for female independence and confidence. Shouldn't women be able to accomplish that on their own? Are they reliant on a faux-appearance? While some women use make-up to "enhance" their features (another marketing ploy of the companies), many use it to alter their face quite dramatically. This is not independence but a false confidence from something abiotic. A woman should have a level of inner stability to leave the house without a cosmetic display, and not just for a grocery run. It should be natural and comfortable going to work, out with friends and in courting that they wear only their normal complexion.
I doubt trends will change but I would be happily corrected if they did. Women have so much to gain from being at ease in their skin and loving their true selves and showing that off, not to mention how it can change the frighteningly low self-esteem of many. Cosmetics are a quick, deceptive and wasteful fix to something that never needed to be fixed: every person, woman or man, has beauty that shouldn't be covered over.
______________________________________________________
21st Century Stereotypes
George Orwell has stated, “If
liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do
not want to hear”, but there comes a point where one has to ask where does
liberty morph into offensive and ill-considered remarks? To complicate this
question further, the context of each individual will affect how the answer is
pondered. The 21st century paradox combines an encouragement for
freedom of speech whilst also demanding censorship on what is deemed “offensive”
or “inappropriate” by prominent protests, regardless of group size. This
hypocritical approach can seen to be furthered by those who give ‘helpful
advice’ that gives with one hand whilst robbing with the other.
A video uploaded to YouTube
in December of 2013 demonstrates this very point. A nine-minute discussion
between social media ‘celebrities’ Nash Grier, JC Caylen and Cameron Dallas
focuses on the topic of “what guys look for in girls”. What should also be
interpreted by this title is what they don’t
find attractive in girls, however the approach by each individual is
intriguing.
The video opens with full
shot of the three boys sitting on a couch, with Nash at the centre introducing
each member and that “today, we’re talkin’ about girls”. It is noteworthy that
throughout the duration of the discussion, each of the presenters attempts to
finish statements which others have started, or that they begin talking right
over each other. Already, viewers should be prepared for mixed responses.
Viewers could be deceived by the apparent enthusiasm displayed within the first
twenty seconds, “This is gonna be good” announced in a hungry manner.
The first comments on the
subject come from 16-year-old Nash Grier, strategically placed in the centre of
the three, with “the number one thing I look for in a girl… you have to be
entertaining… be funny, have a personality, entertain me.” This suggests that
Grier exhibits the mindset of the male populous from pre-20th
century, that of the woman’s role as one of entertainer and servant, doting on
her male partner for his every whim. Whilst it would be folly to assume that
this teenager has the identical opinion, remnants of the opinion can be heard
in the statement and tone of voice. This is supported by another statement of
“girls that have, like, talents. So many girls these days don’t do anything…”
Clearly, the majority of the girls with which Grier has come into contact haven’t
had activities to occupy their time, or haven’t cared to share their interests
with him. Nor has it been considered that it is possible the girl has been in
the midst of finding a new interest.
Commenting on the interests
of girls, Caylen begins by readjusting Grier’s initial comment with “girls that
make you a better you”. This change, even in the early part of the discussion,
should reassure the audience that third-person observations giving indirect
praise will be prevalent, however, this is almost immediately thwarted: “you
gotta be outgoing… kinda like excited to do things”. There is definitely moral
behind the second half of the sentence, although the somewhat demanding nature
of the start of the sentence creates an arrogant and reprimanding air. This
style reappears frequently throughout the discussion.
Not to exclude, the comments
from Dallas are similar to that of Caylen. Within the sub-topic of talents and
having an interesting personality, the audience learns of a type of female: “ooh,
spontaneous girls!” It is also pointed out that there are obvious levels of
attractiveness, almost as if there is a 5-star rating that will be assessed by
males upon introduction, as shown by “If a girl sings, ooh, that makes you so
much more attractive”. A common and infamous reputation of some females is
mocked by Caylen when he assumes the attitude and voice of a “snobbish” girl
and states “I’m just gonna get fake tits and show this guy”. The directionless
statement demonstrates a supercilious mind-set and incorrect mass labeling of
the actions of females. Ironically, this is closely followed by Caylen’s wish
of “I like girls that can cuddle”.
Moving into the heavier, more
definitive actions of girls, the audience is given direct instructions and
suggestions, many of which are statements that taper off after the initial
introduction; the rest of the sentence is implied. This suggests an inability
to complete thought processes or a foolish assumption that the audience will
draw on the conclusion for themselves, as shown by Grier’s statements “Girls
with good style. If you dress well…” and “Yo, honestly it sounds stupid, but if
you text a guy first… it’s fine”. A stereotype is presumed, followed by a
‘Goldilocks’ style explanation of “If you play hard to get, if you play too
hard to get, it’s just like ‘she doesn’t like me’, but if you play easy, it’s
like ‘oh, she’s a whore’ ” because apparently “The chase is such a big part of
it”. It has not been considered that with each person, male of female, the approach
to displaying interest to a potential partner differs constantly. Have they not
considered that many males show their interest by teasing and picking on their
female of choice? Or that some girls find it difficult to interpret and
reciprocate the thoughts, words and actions of a guy they fancy and respond
appropriately? Not all females, and males included, know how to “Make it clear
that [they] like [them]” and “drop [them] hints”. It is then made obvious when
Caylen speaks on behalf of the male race when he informs the audience that “We
like a challenge” and Grier supports this topic by suggesting that females be
the ones to “Find the balance”.
Further assessment of the
generalized female character reveals a continuation of the ‘Goldilocks’
approach, Grier exclaims “I hate it when girls are obnoxious and loud and
crazy, like calm down… I like crazy girls but when you’re in here and like 5 ft.
away from me, you don’t need to be like ‘NASH!’ ”. Don’t misunderstand that
there is cause behind this claim, as in life, there are certain people who test
patience with their confronting personality, however elaboration on the
likeable ‘crazy’ and the disliked ‘crazy’ would dispel confusion surrounding
the phrase.
Dominating the majority of the
discussion is the topic of appearance. Given the demanding standards of modern
day society, it is not surprising when this topic surfaces, however many of the
suggestions made are likely to shock the audience. The ‘gentler’ comments
introduce the topic, such as “If you have soft hair… if you have like really
beautiful natural hair, it’s kind of, like, awesome”, “And freckles. Yo, if you
have freckles, and you’re a girl, they’re so cute” and “A little bit of makeup
if you want it, but don’t over do it” which follow the general thoughts of most
males. Dallas supports these comments by Grier when he claims his “biggest pet
peeve” is “when girls draw in the eyebrows. Don’t draw in your eyebrows! ...
Your natural eyebrows look way better than a freakin’ marker”. Such a statement
brings reassurance to the audience that there is appreciation for what becomes
called “the natural look” by Grier. Dallas promotes this positive thinking when
he declares “a lot of girls look better without make-up”, encouraging
self-worth and appreciation.
Continuing the aesthetic examination,
Caylen leads with the most expressions of personal preference. “I like girls
that a short… petite girls” precedes a question to his fellow presenters, “Yo
brunettes, who’s with me? Brunettes all the way… I like long, wavy hair”.
Dallas and Grier insert their opinions also with “change up your hair; don’t
just straighten it every day” and girls who “can get dressed up but who can
also get dressed down… [and] who can cook, automatically a five” respectively.
Where the discussion turns to shallow and judgmental attacks is when Grier
criticizes females with “Yo! Shave! Brush your teeth! Shave! This stuff, when
you have a little peach fuzz and, like, we’re makin’ out, ugh, no… arm hair:
just wax, shave. It’s the worst when there’s hairs. Terrible” immediately after
claiming “everybody’s trying to, like, be one image, or be like this; just be
yourself”. The ‘Goldilocks’ hypocrisy has be taken to the highest at this
point. The audience would, by now, be considering an inability to appreciate
individuality and the female race, and a facetious opinion, at which point
Caylen appears to make a mild challenge to the statement with the protest “but
the natural look…” Unfortunately, the interjection makes little difference when
Grier responds with “the natural look is great, but the hair… take the hair
off. I’m sorry… I’m not a hair guy”. This response is akin to the pointless
statement “No offense, but…” Is Grier to believe that females don’t already
spend precious time eliminating hair growth they despise? Is he also to assume
that there are females who are adverse to patches of hair that males are known
to grow? Does he forget that hair growth is a natural and biological part of
our anatomy and that the intensity of hair growth differs for each person and
nationality? It is known that society places great pressure on young people to
present themselves according to the definition of earthly beauty, so a
statement to young girls to discourage security within themselves reveals a
careless and abuse of liberty, of freedom of speech.
The obvious and more mature advice
of “be yourself personality wise and be yourself appearance wise, because at
the end of the day that’s what’s going to make you attractive” comes too
little, too late at the end of the video. Regardless of the good intention
behind this statement, any and all criticisms before it make the statement
redundant. It therefore proves these young men are not capable the hypocritical
nature of too many adolescents, but also the delicate nature of liberty. The quality
of the content in the video also tests the legitimacy of the comment made by
Grier’s mother in an online article that “Nash is a perfectionist”.
Irrespective of personal
context, the opinions voiced in this video challenge the concept of liberty. While
there may be words people should hear because it is detrimental to their well
being, there are many thoughts that should have remained merely thoughts that
nobody would want to hear. Caylen encompasses the essence of the video when he comments,
“We’re picky”.
________________________________________________________________
This is a comment I found
when I first found an article discussing this video. Whilst I’m stable within
myself so that the fickle comments of others don’t reach me, some aren’t as
fortunate as I. This is what prompted my response.
When I watched this video, it was 6 am
in the morning and I was on my way to school.
After finishing this video, my whole day was
ruined. I
felt ugly, and worthless, and flawed.
But not because I cared
about these boys and they didn't like me for who I was, but because I thought
that all guys looked at me this way.
Was I too hairy? And
therefore gross?
Did
I need to lose weight? Or learn how to sing?
I don't give a crap
that these boys think I'm not perfect and not worthy of their love, but what
they said made me feel inferior as a person to all men.
So
here I am, an example of what this video has done to people. Teenage girls, in
fact.
I
am a teenage girl, and I was extremely hurt.
Getting home from school
that day, I redid myself just because what these boys said to me.
I
am giving myself up as an example as a teenage girl who was extremely scarred
and pained by the words that these boys said.
So yes, I
do believe this effected many girls' lives.
______________________________________________________
Old Testament Story Still Causing Arguments Over Faith
2 Peter 3:16- …There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own utter destruction, just as [they distort and misconstrue] the rest of the Scriptures.
Having being a Child of God since the age of four, and
working part-time at a cinema, my reactions to the soon-to-be released Russell
Crowe film ‘Noah’ have been undecided. Only recently with the coverage of
stories on morning talk shows have the various thoughts I’ve had on this topic
come into alignment.
The first media report about this film was regarding the
state of the film being banned in a number of Islamic-dominant countries.
Places such as the United Emirates have ensured the film is not to be screened
at all for it “goes against Islamic values”.
My own initial reaction to finding out that such a movie was
being made was one of comprehension. “What am I to expect? How will they
portray the story? Should I trust them to be accurate or is that placing
ill-founded trust in Hollywood film-makers?”
After hearing more reports of similar nature, one delving
further into details, and discussing it with a significant person in my life, I know exactly where I
stand.
I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised with my eventual
conclusion since I’d had a similar one when I learned about “The Bible” TV
series and the accompanying film “Son of God”. As interviews rolled through, I
watched with disgust as interviewer after interviewer, fan after fan, made it
known how much they thought the Jesus character was “hot”. One question that
arose multiple times was “Is it ok to think that Jesus is attractive or hot?”
and it was said in a joking manner, suggesting those who thought it had a
miniscule sensation that it wasn’t, but they were going to ignore it for the
physical sensation to which their hormones gave way.
When I heard such comments, my automatic response was “No”.
It is merely an actor portraying the
act of Jesus in a production produced
many years after his appearance on earth, and more importantly, in a society
where the name and image of God is mocked by a depressing majority. I believe
when people have the gall to say “Jesus is hot” they have lost any sensitivity
to those with faith. Any Christian-derived religion that acknowledges Jesus and
his role in God’s plan, and Jesus’ relationship with his people, won’t find the
brash comment enjoyable.
Once I realised this and paired it with the recent comments
reported in the media and my dad’s simple, yet cuttingly accurate statements, I
found my approach to the TV adaptation is applicable to Crowe’s “Noah”. This
holds great disappointment because I feel a sense of dedication to Russell
Crowe given our connection as Australians. But upon writing this, I see the
foolishness of basing my disappointment on one meager similarity. There may be
others, but my faith holds greater importance in my life than any actor, who
happens to share my nationality, could ever hope to have. That actor will most
likely never know me, nor will they have any regard for my beliefs either. Why
should they? They are like any other human; capable of holding their own
beliefs and values, and simply because they are well known my a strong majority
of the world’s population and have a false glory placed upon them by men, that
does not mean that everything they stand for or do holds merit. Some actions
will, some actions won’t.
How did I arrive at this conclusion? Two explicit reasons.
First, with all the discussion created over the banning of
the film, it has been reported that Paramount films have put a unique
disclaimer on their film.
“The film is inspired by the story of Noah. While
artistic license has been taken, we believe that this film is true to the
essence, values and integrity of a story that is a cornerstone of faith for
millions of people worldwide. The biblical story of Noah can be found in the
Book of Genesis.”
Although I haven’t seen the movie, and don’t plan to, how
are the distributors in a position to determine if the film is “true to the
essence, values and integrity of [the] story”? It is obvious through the
handling of the film in general that the distributors are not of the Christian
faith, so they have no idea of even the general mindset of a person in faith. I
would be interested to hear the depth of their study of the Bible, whether or
not they limited themselves to the Old Testament or allowed themselves to
investigate the New Testament, which is the current covenant for Christians to
live by.
There is also the issue of the contradicting statements:
“film is inspired by the story of Noah… artistic license has been taken…”
against “we believe that his film is true to the… integrity…” These phrases are
in opposition to each other. They initially acknowledge the film is created on
the basis of the bible story, and that is has been made in such a way that
artistic license has been applied and therefore, takes it off the path of
accuracy. In the same sentence, they embarrass themselves by saying they
believe their “artistic license” makes the film “true to the essence, values
and integrity”. They cannot claim both sides of the argument; the two cannot
exist beside each other.
The second part of my conclusion is the small handful of
comments made by a family member. His first was “that movie should never have been
made”. This prompted me to ask why. He then explained to me that the producers
are dwelling on an outdated covenant, that they are portraying and concentrating
attention on old stories in an attempt to scare audiences and profit from it at
the same time. They don’t care for accuracy; their focus is money, and they are
highly likely to make money from something that is well known and will create
controversy. The film is, without any doubt, generating controversy.
This disclaimer has been included not to calm the religious
community, but to save the hides of everyone involved with the film. They are
well and truly aware that religious groups, despite modern trends, are still
dominant in the world. There are many forms and most are a derivative of the
Christian faith. This makes a potentially volatile situation with religious
communities having considerable influence over the success of the movie.
The number of these instances seems to only be at the
beginning. It’s only going to create greater conflict between distributors and religious
communities as those with “artistic license” endeavor to extend the boundaries.
Galatians 6:7- Do not
be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also
reap.
No comments:
Post a Comment