Showing posts with label judgement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judgement. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Pitting Religion Against Religion

I'm not in a very happy mood today, so I chose a not very happy song.

When You Break, by Bear's Den (explicit)

For all it's melancholia, it's a gorgeous song. Bear's Den may become my next band obsession.

---

By far, at this point in the semester, my favorite class has to be Paganism to Christianity.

For the first three weeks we covered Greek mythology, one of my stronger suits in the world of mythology and religion. I've learned a lot of things that the Percy Jackson series didn't cover, like the Dodona oracle, the exegetai, Eleusinian Mysteries - basically, the nitty-gritty stuff that HoO didn't need to cover in order to make sense. Not to mention I read the entire Theogony and Works and Days by Hesiod, which covered five pages, top to bottom in tiny print, of notes about who fathered who and who offended who, plus little tidbits like the actual names of the three Fates/Moirai (Clotho, Lachesis, and Atropos), the fact that Athena also goes by Tritogenia (Third-Born), and Aphrodite comes from Cyprus, hence her alternate name Cytherea.

Another interesting thing I kind of always assumed but never really outright learned was the complete and utter lack of secularism. Religion was the law, and kings or governments made decisions based on the gods' will - good omens and the like. In fact, Plato was the first to outright suggest that matters of belief could be criminal offenses. But then again, Plato wanted to ban jokes, so what does he know?

Perhaps my favorite thing I've learned so far is a quote by Xenophanes, and the TL;DR version goes, "If horses could paint, their gods would be horses."A.k.a., anthropomorphism is stupid. Quite interesting how skepticism on religion in Greece was tolerated unless it messed with the practice of rites*. Don't believe in the gods the same way as everyone else? Cool, unless you don't carry out the proper rites. You don't need to believe to practice.

*With the famous exception of Socrates, but to be fair, he was not only disbelieving of the gods, but also taught his pupils the same, and introduced foreign deities. Polytheism doesn't mean it's more liberal in tolerance than Christianity.

This week we started on Roman religion. Up until now, I had assumed that Romans took Greek mythology and just changed a few names around, but it actually worked out a little more like convergent evolution - the Romans already had their gods - Jupiter, Juno, Minerva*, etc. (Ceres was the first to become more Grecian, followed closely by the adoption of Asclepius - not surprising, health and fertility were pretty important things). It's more like the Romans noticed the similarities between the two sets of deities and adopted the cults of Greece into their religion. It was Greece's antiquity - that which the Romans very, VERY much admired - that garnered so much interest and respect from Roman citizens.

*In Percy Jackson, it seems as though Minerva was much less powerful than her Greek version, and Bellona took over her job position. As Reyna told Annabeth, Minerva was more the goddess of arts and crafts in Roman society. But I just learned that on Capitoline Hill is a temple dedicated to Jupiter Optimus Maximus, as well as Juno and - surprise - Minerva. Riordan, what's up with that?

I learned the Romans have no equivalent to the Greek Theogony - no myths about the squabbles of the gods, or who did what to which poor human. There were few stories at all, with or without a moral. Instead, they had rites to celebrate Rome's growth, like a certain victorious day here or a birthday of an emperor there (totally looking at you here, Augustus, you self-centered, conceited master leader you). This isn't to say they didn't sacrifice to the gods at all, but to them the gods were more like benevolent patrons of the state - you could say to worship the gods would be the same as worshipping Rome itself (though that statement is false, citizens didn't sacrifice to their city or anything).

Another interesting (in a different way) part of this class is the number of Christians/Catholics taking it (I also know of one Jewish girl). Not that the interesting part is that they're taking a class that talks about paganism (described by my teacher as "everything other than Christianity"), but how astute and quick they are to draw similarities between their religion and that of the Greeks and Romans.

For instance, I have heard comparisons made between the production of Gaia from Chaos/the Chasm, and the beginning of the universe in the Genesis. I've heard how the Golden Age of Man is similar to the Garden of Eden, and how Pandora is similar to Eve in that they are the cause of all man's misery (My personal observation, might I add, is how they were set up to fail from the beginning by God/the gods, and yet it is still their fault. Pandora with the tantalizing box and a curious heart created by the gods, and Eve with the tantalizing apple of knowledge and free will given by God). Most recently is the comparison of Romulus and Remus to Cain and Abel - brothers killing each other, yeah, I see it.

I don't know, but for some reason it bothers me how much these people are trying to find their God in everything, even in an era when the concept of their God didn't even exist yet. They're kind of like that friend that somehow always manages to make the conversation about them - "Oh, yesterday I went biking with my family." "Really? That's so cool, I once had a bike my brother gave to me, we went riding together all the time, I have to tell you about this one time where we blah blah blah I've changed the subject to me now, hope you didn't have anything else you wanted to say."

That doesn't bother me so much as what went down today though. A boy (the same who connected the Golden Age with Eden and Romulus with Cain) had a lot to say when we learned the Romans weren't as concerned with ethics.

Some backstory: So basically, the Romans had no dogma, and no moral code. To have the favor of the gods in their society meant one was successful, wealthy, and healthy. As Cicero said, "The supreme law is the well being of the people." They had social customs - they had piety, or respectfulness to the gods and the people around them - but their religion itself did not have a code of ethics.

A lot of religious classmates took extreme issue with this news. The boy previously mentioned asked if the religion didn't provide morals, did the government do it instead? Since technically the gods and government are the same thing. I thought this was a fair question, but it slightly unsettled me because it meant in the boy's mind there absolutely needed to be a guideline for daily life from a higher power. If it didn't come from a god, then it had to come from a god-like source. The possibility a code, in any form, didn't even exist in the first place couldn't seem to occur to him. That thought is scary, that he thinks humans are such weak creatures that we cannot independently and rationally determine for ourselves what is right and wrong, and that we'd screw it up if we ever did.

Another dude asked since the Roman society offered no moral code, did the citizens go elsewhere to seek guidance? This one pissed me off much more than the first question, because it implied citizens could not be moral without someone, probably supernatural, telling then what was right and wrong. In my mind, the boy's tone was condescending - how could these people possibly know what to do unless someone else explicitly told them? They must have gone to a different cult for guidance, they wouldn't've implicitly known to be honorable. This last analysis also pissed me off because it implied conversion - a practice many Christians love to promote despite the obvious discomfort of the recipient - not because they "fear God's wrath" and would rather prefer to "sin," but because it's an unwarranted and unwanted imposition of one point of view over another (Can you tell this experience is personal?).

I've never witnessed so many hands raised to ask questions yet - six in succession, quite a lot in a class where no one really has a hard time understanding the material. This phenomenon ties in with I've witnessed with other religious people, namely Christian and Catholics, who all seem fixated on a God telling them what is right and wrong. I've heard extremists - the ones who won't outright say that they think Christianity has a monopoly on morals - claim that without the Bible and/or the Ten Commandments, many people would genuinely not know what to do, and we'd have many more murderers and criminals in general without religion. An interesting claim, since recent stats have revealed .07% of self-reported prisoners are atheist. (What Percentage of Prisoners are Atheists? It’s a Lot Smaller Than We Ever Imagined)

I'm clearly revealing my own bias now, so I'll stop. An interesting note on myself is how I automatically link sources to facts after writing essays that need multiple in-text citations as compared to high school. It happened in my last post too.

Results and Conclusion (Is this a scientific report format I detect?): I am enjoying my class on religion the most out of my four total classes, probably because I'm such a Greek mythology buff to begin with. However, I'm not appreciating the constant comparison of one religion to another, supposedly and traditionally better one. But since I understand that they cannot help their upbringing any more than I can help mine, I won't condemn a person simply because their one view (on a subject that matters very little to me) differs from mine.

Sunday, March 1, 2015

Natural or Enhanced Beauty?

I'd been scanning through the Buzzfeed YouTube videos* as of late when I came across an interesting pair of experiments: Girls who wear makeup going without it for a week, and girls who never wear makeup wearing it for a week. The two videos are called "What It's Like To Stop Wearing Makeup" and "What It's Like To Start Wearing Makeup."

*There are a lot of SJWs in the comments of Buzzfeed. A LOT, most of them unjustified and just looking for an argument. There are also a lot of meninist-like comments too. Generally a lot of sexist people looking to be offended. I try to avoid the comment section when watching Buzzfeed videos.

Basically, the girl who did wear makeup a lot felt very vulnerable and self-conscious without it. She felt like people were judging her more, she didn't believe people who told her she looked good without makeup, and she lost a lot of confidence. The worst part was when someone told her, "You look tired."

Pro tip, don't tell someone they look tired. I wouldn't even tell my closest friends that, and I'm notorious for being sarcastically mean (Though I always try to pair it with a large smile, and I try to deliver the line in a way that it's clear I mean the opposite. I only use these comments on people I know will know it's just my brand of awful funny - I'd never say it to an acquaintance, and I'd never make fun of bodily features). I can't even think of any exceptions to that rule, and I'm the one who believes that there are always exceptions. It's kind of like never asking a girl if she's on her period.

(Never.)

On the other hand, the girl just beginning to wear makeup also lost a little confidence. She also felt like people were staring more, and was a bit uncomfortable with the attention (she also noted that while girls were perceptive of her change and complemented on her new lipstick or eyeliner or whatever, guys noticed something was off but couldn't quite place it). She tried to justify wearing makeup by saying it was for an experiment, instead of just thanking them for the compliment.

However, in the end both girls got used to it in less than a week. The first one decided she felt more comfortable without makeup than she did before, and the second one admitted that, as a girl who didn't wear makeup, it was hard to say that makeup made her feel more confident.

I know people who dislike makeup, and I know people who wear it every day. It's never been a concern of mine what they do - like I would never try to tell them they would look better if they "enhanced their beauty" or went with the "natural look." Whatever they like to do, I go with it (Though I did like to do other girls makeup for them for formal events if they'd let me, because it was fun painting on another person's face for a change).

Personally, I wear makeup to hide my imperfections. I'm not a confident girl; foundation/powder hides my flaws and eyeliner helps my eyes not be so mole-small. But those are the only things I do, and I can put it all on in 10 minutes or less (though I usually don't because I drag my feet in the mornings). Yes, the money I use on makeup can be spent on other things - books, concert tickets, iTunes, food - but that's my own choice. Besides, there are plenty of cheap brands at drug stores; I'm not into the top-notch stuff you see on TV commercials. I could buy two eyeliner pencils for the price of one Five Guys burger - and guess which will last longer?

(I started wearing makeup in the beginning middle school, but only eyeliner for my bottom lids. That pencil? I still have it after eight years, with a good inch and a half left of it. That's how sparingly I've used it.)

If I had better skin though, I wouldn't wear makeup at all. I'd much rather sleep in than slather warpaint on my face. Until that day comes though, I'll use it. Besides, I've gotten really good at winged eyeliner - a skill that took me four years to really master.

However, the people who say "Makeup is bad" purely because it supports the patriarchy's control over women (making them buy things they don't need) and things along that line are the people I have a problem with. There's feminism - supporting women in whatever they want to do, even if they want to be a housewife or a stripper. Then there are the feminazis - those who are 100% against all males (though they claim they want to end sexism); those who get angry at any woman who changes her natural appearance in any sort of way; those who'd get mad at you for shaving your legs. I feel like it would be those kinds of people who'd get mad at me for wearing makeup, and for being so weak and insecure as to not face the world with a bare face.

If makeup makes me happier, if it makes me more confident (a serious problem of mine), why should I stop? Why should I be unhappy to fulfill their skewed utopian world?

I will admit, there are some people who say they wear makeup solely for themselves - they do not wear makeup for other's benefit, and I do not really believe that. I do not wear makeup for myself, I wear it to impress others. After all, I do not put on a full face and then stay in all day trolling the internet, do I? That'd just be a waste of product and putting it all on isn't that fun. At least for me. As I stated earlier, there are always (usually, haha) exceptions.

---

Oops, my hand slipped:


I did this about a week ago, a few days after the Owl City one, at the request of a Coldplay song from my dad. I've also started making mashups of my own, but no way I'm ready to post them. Refer confidence problem above.

Link to Wide Awake On Paradise Boulevard (the original name, I took a few liberties): http://youtu.be/Hho9gQccPCI

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Extensive Rant on Racism

I have mentioned multiple times that I am taking an introductory course to dance and culture, and it was the class that I was looking forward to the most at the end of this summer. I hate it now, but that's not the point. I was supposed to write an essay comparing two dance cultures. I forget what the other one was now (this was about a month ago), but I remember the second culture was Muslim. As in, traditional, original Muslim belly dancing.

I didn't know whether belly dancing was one word or two, so I just typed it into the search bar, no spaces, and hit enter, knowing Google would either correct me or present websites and articles that showed the correct spelling. As it turns out, belly dancing is two words.

I was about to go back to writing my essay when a link with a special little title caught my eye: "Why I can't stand white belly dancers."

So naturally, I clicked on it to see what it was really about, because surely, Salon wouldn't publish an article that was actually so blatantly racist, right?

Holy frick.

Sit your sanctimonious butt down, Randa Jarrar, and listen up because you done pissed me off and s***'s about to get real.

I am a systematic person, so I will go down her ridiculous article in order. If you chose not to read the article (which I highly do not advise), that's fine because I'll be quoting her absurd comments anyways.

Google the term “belly dance” and the first images the search engine offers are of white women in flowing, diaphanous skirts, playing at brownness.

Playing at brownness? You think they belly dance to try to appear brown? You really think they belly dance, not because it is enjoyable, or because it boosts their confidence, but because to appear brown is a desirable trait in America? I don't know where Jarrar got the idea that belly dancing is accepted by society, because the words that first come to mind to describe belly dancers are not very nice: slut, prostitute, stripper. The whole the-more-skin-you-show-the-less-intelligent-you-are thing. You think they want to appear this way?

The term “belly dance” itself is a Western one. In Arabic, this kind of dance is called Raqs Sharqi, or Eastern dance.

I fail to see how this matters in the slightest. A rose by any other name is still a rose, right? Maybe if it were translated to something derogatory, then there would be cause for complaint. But belly dancing, or as Jarrar say is properly Raqs Sharqi, actually involves undulations of the torso. It's just a literal name. Besides, this is hardly the first case that a culture has taken a word in another language and changed it to make it easier to remember. Heard of wontons, shampoo, or parka? All these words are anglicized. "Westerners" are not targeting your specific culture, so don't pretend to take it so personally. If "Western" people had kept the original name, you 'd probably bash them for mangling the pronunciation.

It goes the other way around too; in Chinese, the characters for sofa (an English word) are pronounced "sha-fa" and sandwich is "sa-ming-zh." The characters are just used phonetically. If you translated it literally, it would come out as gibberish. The French liked the word "shampoo" so much they adopted it, but French-ized it to be "le shampooing" (and "aprés-shampooing" for conditioner). It's not just "Westerners" that are the criminals (by Jarrar's definition of criminal). All countries do it for the sake of simplicity.

... A white woman came out in Arab drag — because that’s what that is, when a person who’s not Arab wears genie pants and a bra and heavy eye makeup and Arabic jewelry, or jewelry that is meant to read as “Arabic” because it’s metallic and shiny and has squiggles of some kind — and began to belly-dance.

Honey, this is called stereotyping. If you're going to take personal offense at indirect stereotyping, I don't know how you go through life without being offended by something every day. When I went to my Chinese cousin's English lessons years ago, Americans were depicted as pistol-wielding, chaps-wearing, ten-gallon-hat-donning cowboys in her textbook. Dutch people've got their clogs, the Irish are shamrocks and leprechauns, Kenyans have tribal patterned clothes, and Brazilians are scantily-clad revelers. All these stereotypes come from a truth, or what was once a truth. If the world identifies Arabs with beautiful women in genie pants and a bra, that's hardly the worst thing they've associated with Arabs.

She was not a terrible belly dancer. But she was incredibly thin...

I actually didn't have too much of a problem with the article up to this point, because most of what Jarrar said held a grain of truth. But this line was the start of my anger. So, just because she's thin, she's not allowed to dance? Just because she wasn't born with curves, or because she prefers her body to look slimmer, she's not allowed to dance your dance? By Jarrar's logic, girls with cup sizes above C can't dance ballet anymore. Short, slender guys can't dance hip-hop. Tall girls older than 16 can't do gymnastics. Please. Don't ever blame someone's natural body type, something they had zero say in choosing, as the reason why they can't try something new. Judge the girl on her actual belly dancing skills and not the way she's built - and by that, Jarrar actually complements her. Slenderness does not always equal unhealthy diets. There are a lot of thin women out there who wish they weren't, so don't put them down even further and tell them, "No," because of your unfair generalizations on body image

Western, or white women, were beginning to take over gigs in Egypt. These women moved there out of an obsession with belly dance and are now appropriating it from local dancers.

This sounds so hilariously familiar. All the American nationalists who are against immigration, because immigrants are taking up jobs and occupations that the nationalists seem to think belong as a right to those born in the U.S. Do they realize their ancestors, who were immigrants themselves, nearly exterminated the first local population in their rush to stick flags in new ground? Nationalists: those who fear that immigrants will do to them what they/their ancestors did to others. My point is, Jarrar is acting like those nationalists, who seem to think that the people of the culture have a monopoly on who gets to learn, practice, and participate in that same culture. If there's a demand for white belly dancers instead of native belly dancers, what's to stop the "Westerners" from going out there and making bank as the supply? It's sad, yes, that it will take many job opportunities away from Egyptian women, and I feel sympathy for them, but no one ever said life would be fair.


And say "appropriation" one more time. I dare you.

"Would you wear a dashiki and rock waspafarian dreads and take up African dance publicly? Wait,” we’d probably say, “don’t answer that.”

Yeah, actually. Snigger all you want at them, but some people do that. Why? Is it really your business what other people do, as long as they don't hurt anyone else? I took a Ghana workshop in my dance class, and learned the basic steps and the music that accompanied them, but the best part was that our leader put a lot of emphasis on sharing knowledge and awareness. He said when he was growing up in Ghana they were required in elementary school to learn the names and locations of all 50 states of America. Do you know the 47 continental countries of Africa? No? Then stop being a hypocrite and referring to all the different dance styles in Africa as simply "African." Do you even realize you are doing to the continent of Africa what you say others are doing to belly dancing? Do you hear yourself generalizing? "Dashiki" and "dreads" are about as encompassing of the African cultures as genie pants and bras are to yours.

Women I have confronted about this have said, “But I have been dancing for 15 years! This is something I have built a huge community on.” These women are more interested in their investment in belly dancing than in questioning and examining how their appropriation of the art causes others harm.

In your haste to name those women the criminals for being selfish, you yourself are revealed to be even more so. You are clinging to the dance style, practically screeching, "Mine! You can't have it!" These women find pride and happiness and, as they say, a community in a part of your culture; you should be flattered it has had such a positive effect on them (As they say, mimicry is the highest form of flattery). As a person who has struggled nearly all her life in finding a group of reliable and trustworthy friends, I can't help but despise you for trying to take that away from someone else.

And you said appropriation again.


Definitions will always differ, but Wikipedia says that the meaning of "appropriation" in art form is this: In the visual arts, to appropriate means to properly adopt, borrow, recycle or sample aspects (or the entire form) of human-made visual culture. To me, it has a rather neutral connotation here, neither good nor bad. Technically, Jarrar is correct in her usage. But what she has done is to twist it into a crime. News flash: Globalization is a thing and there's no stopping it. There is absolutely nothing wrong in learning about the cultures outside of one's own sphere. In fact, lack of knowledge about other cultures is shameful in today's society. I've read enough of how people like to generalize about the obliviousness of Americans to politics and norms in other countries. In your eyes, the white woman just can't win, can she? If she doesn't know of the nuances of your culture, she is ignorant and disrespectful; if she tries to learn and even integrate herself in it, she is butting in where she shouldn't.

Find another form of self-expression. Make sure you’re not appropriating someone else’s.

There is nothing she can do to self-express, then. If the only culture she can express herself in is her own, then there are so many opportunities for discovery lost, and such a narrow channel to choose from. Besides, are you saying Europeans can't also be Buddhists? Can people of only white descent learn ballet? I hope not, because then you can go ahead and try to tell Misty Copeland to hang up her pointe shoes and only pursue African dances. Dance is about technique, dedication, and yes, self-expression. Not ethnicity or race.

Stop saying that word, I swear. Your objection ought more to be to the misappropriation of the culture where people turn it into something vulgar, demeaning, or offensive. Perhaps those who dress up in skimpy belly dance garb for Halloween. Don't focus on those who actually take it seriously.

This dance form is originally ours, and does not exist so that white women can have a better sense of community; can gain a deeper sense of sisterhood with each other; can reclaim their bodies; can celebrate their sexualities; can perform for the female gaze.

I'm done. I'm so pissed off I don't trust myself to respond to this without including vulgarity.

---

I found a real article and video also responding to this horrible opinion on cultural appropriation:


This article Jarrar wrote could have been an opportunity to span a cultural gap. Instead, she wants maintain the divide. Why? As I've previously stated, globalization is a huge aspect of nearly any society today. People get bored with their own cultures, I know I do. I love learning about the history and values of countries/cultures other than mine, not only because I find it interesting and worth knowing, but so that I don't say the wrong thing and offend people. I think it makes me a better, more rounded person, much like the way students at most colleges are required to take core classes not pertaining to their major. People are to be encouraged to sample other cultures, to learn that it takes all kinds of people to make a world, but those like Jarrar essentially say it is now "appropriation" if one doesn't stay in their lane culturally.

Which is, to put it bluntly, f***ed up.

I understand the need to preserve cultures. I think what Jarrar was trying to do was to protect her heritage (heritage because she was born in Chicago - irony) from becoming a watered down joke, in which case I would have fully supported her. I keep using Chinese examples, and I apologize, but I know I would hate it if the only things the Chinese were remembered for were Chinese New Year, the zodiac, communism, and character tattoos. A lot of people only know what the media tells them about Muslim culture - which isn't very much, or very broad. But Jarrar is attacking the wrong people. Instead of targeting those who are actively diluting her culture - those who think of it only in terms of stereotypes - she criminalizes those who are supporting it in its original form and spreading the proper knowledge. This huge flaw in her argument crumbles the whole thing.

The sharing of art forms - theater, canvas, dance, music - can unite the people on this Earth. It creates understanding among people of different backgrounds. Sing what you can't say, dance to put to physical form the intangible, paint to let others into the pictures in your mind. Ignorance and its promotion should never be supported. If you don't want to learn about the world - fine. That's your prerogative. But don't stifle other people's harmless curiosity.

---

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent.”
- Jim Jarmusch

“It’s not where you take things from - it’s where you take them to."
- Jean-Luc Godard

I am about to board my flight home, so I shall end here:

Reverse racism is still racism.

*steps off soapbox*

Wednesday, October 8, 2014

Bay Area Connotation

Something different - here's a soundscape song I often listen to when doing homework. If you choose, you can listen to it while reading (instead of the song being at the end).

Liquid Shards, by Callan Maart


---

Let me tell you a story.

I was walking from dinner the other night with the girl I consider myself closest to, as of right now. Not because she's an awesome person, or because I really enjoy talking to her (though I do), but because she lives on the same floor as I do and it's easy to just meet up to go to places. Plus, she likes most of the same music I do (which isn't a necessary or important factor if lacking, but is definitely a plus if it's there).

Anyways, at the cafeteria some of the tables can be set rather closely together, and as I was moving to walk between two tables, another girl and her friend went to go there too. We both stopped because there obviously wasn't enough room for both of us, and motioned to the other at the same time to go first. She was persistent in staying put, so I went first and said, "Thanks," accompanied with a nod. And then before I was out of earshot, I heard her friend say, "Wow, that was like a nice-off!"

(I guess it was supposed to be a compliment, but it felt like a taunt, especially since it wasn't directed at me. No one I know likes being laughed at by a stranger. Be careful with casual words, people.)

Flash forward to leaving the cafeteria. There are two sets of doors, probably designed to minimize heat loss during winter (WHAT IS SNOW STILL) and they can be really heavy. As I open the door, I notice some other people are coming towards me, so I wait and hold the door for both of them. They both say thanks, and I can finally let go of the door (I'm not the strongest of people). As we leave, I tell my friend about my "nice-off" encounter, and we have a good laugh. She's silent for a bit then, clearly thinking, and then says this:

"You know, it's really surprising that you're so... nice? No, that's not exactly the word... It's surprising you're so polite, given that, you know, you're from the Bay Area and all."

And you know what? She's absolutely right.

She's not the first one to tell me this. My dad has frequently let me know that he thinks I have very strong morals, and a very secure sense of fairness. And I see where he's coming from. It drives me absolutely insane when people:
  • Don't express gratitude when gratitude is deserved.
  • Reason that if they don't do/get something, someone else will, and that's enough incentive to do/get it themselves.
  • Put merchandise back sloppily or on a different shelf than where it's supposed to go (and I haven't even worked in retail before).
  • Slip through the door as it's closing instead of propping it up for the people behind them. 
  • Are, just in general, inconsiderate.
  • Think that because you are (indirectly, usually) paying for employees to serve you, you can have them do nearly anything for you because "it's their job anyways." No. You grabbed that merch yourself. You don't put it down in a different part of the store and say it's the employees' job to pick up after you (based on a true story). Their job is s*** enough, and you don't need to make it any harder for them. If they offer, that's fine. If it's an area where unwanted items are supposed to be discarded at, that's fine. But never assume.
  • All these, among other things.
Sorry about that rant, but now you see how driven I am to show respect to any and all strangers. Even if I dislike them (though, of course, there will be (very few) exemptions made for those who need a reality check). It's not like it was a core value I was taught by my parents growing up, but it sort of happened anyways. And I know the stereotypes attached to people who grow up in the Bay Area. It's a dog-eat-dog world. I mean, have you even tried negotiating a car in the streets of San Francisco? You've got to be on alert at all times, because people sure aren't ever going to bother looking out for you. What's in it for them?

Back in high school, I heard from other kids about attitudes of other states regarding California, especially the attitudes regarding the biggest cities. I've heard everyone loves the fun, good-times Californians. I've heard everyone hates the arrogant, self-entitled Californians. Since getting here, I can understand how both viewpoints can be used as lens to see not just Californians, but specifically San Franciscans. Especially San Franciscans. Just take those lens and switch them out for ones with a higher magnification. I've got an expectation, a reputation to fulfill. And in some cases, I'm not willing to do that.

It makes me disappointed, knowing this is the major perception of people in large cities, where the environment teaches you that it's not worth being polite to people unless you can get something out of it. You're not here to make friends with the competition or with those below you, for the most part - you're here to get ahead. Respect your friends and family, and disregard the thoughts of everyone else.

(Actually, that could be applied to a lot of the rest of America. The whole drive to individualism, to succeed and better yourself constantly is a huge American ideal. Pro-capitalism! Hard work profits! Get out there and make your mark! To fail at that, well... the pressures to thrive in America is huge. Lots of big names out there to compete with. Not many are willing to be shunted aside.)

After that comment my friend made, I feel myself on alert for how others act around me once they know I'm from the Bay Area. Do they seem fake when they exclaim how cool it must've been? Do they eye me with silent distaste when they think I can't see? Or are they genuinely excited to know someone who grew up in one of the safest bubbles on Earth? I can't see why they would.

---

YouTube may be better known for having funny viral videos, but it also hosts a treasure trove of beautiful animated shorts. I've been going through many; it's amazing, the stories that can be told with no words at all. One of them was about a different perspective on Medusa: not as a rage-filled gorgon who seeks revenge, but as a severely depressed woman who lost everything she held dear. It's lovely, if a bit slow, but at the beginning was this quote:

Things are not always what they seem;
outward form deceives many;
Rare is the mind that discerns
what is carefully concealed within.
-Phaedrus 40 A.D.

I've been sad enough in my time to know how to conceal very well. I wonder if I just tell myself that, or did someone see through my facade? Were they too afraid of embarrassing me to confront me? Have I seen through someone else's, knowing them well enough that I didn't even realize they were trying to pretend?

I tell myself, constantly, to be sensitive to others. I suppose that's why I'm always so polite to those I do not know. Because that is the point - I do not know. I'm not following the old stories, like when, in Beauty and the Beast, the prince rejects the fairy queen's plea for shelter because she appears old and worthless. I'm not worried about regretting treating people wrongly, and thus not being able to reap the benefits when said persons are fit to give them in the future. I just don't want to make anyone feel the uselessness and sadness I've felt.

Now that I think about it, I'm conversely quite rude to my closest friends with my sarcastic banter. But it's my way of saying, "I trust you to know this isn't really me." I don't need to always be polite to them because, if I'm that rude, it means I know them really well and am comfortable teasing them. At least, that's what I tell myself.

(I mean, come on. No one can be an angel 24/7. If I'm going to unleash some insults on someone, it's going to be on the people I know won't be offended, and will shoot some insults right back at me. We'll both know neither of us really mean it.)

But I'll always wait for them so they don't have to walk alone, and hold doors for them so they don't have it slammed in their faces, and help them with any favor if it's within my abilities. I want to be the person people can depend on to be there always, and to not judge them - ever (Forgive me for using their motto as an outsider, but - "Semper Fi").Out of anyone in the world, my friends deserve that respect the most.

Screw what the condescending people think. The Bay Area is my hometown, and the best people I've ever known live(d) there. Not one stereotype is ever 100% true, and in the case of San Francisco - well, you get the jist.