When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Common sense, isn't.

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby Adul » Thu Feb 06, 2014 8:31 am

Just hopping in to clarify that I don't think anyone in this thread has been mean to anyone. I was just talking about general body shaming practices that I have observed (elsewhere). Not sure if this needed to be said, but it's better to be safe than sorry—the internet is a tough place to get yourself across due to the lack of body language. :whistling:
User avatar
Adul
Warden
 
Posts: 1142
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 9:40 pm

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby Elaura » Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:31 pm

I appreciate the clarification, Adul. I'm afraid body shaming is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the discourteousness, rudeness, and downright meanness that has become the norm. People don't even think twice about "sharing" their opinions of other people. They call it honesty, but honesty doesn't excuse being hurtful.
Available for weddings, funerals, hand fasting, and baptisms.
Image
User avatar
Elaura
Chaplain
 
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:52 am
Location: About ten feet to Jac's left.
Title: Mrs.
Gender: Female

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby neildarkstar » Thu Feb 06, 2014 5:49 pm

I think that in reality, we have become so concerned with being politically correct to avoid offending people that we have become offensive to nearly everyone simply due to a lack of manners. We tend to be ill-mannered and insulting and hide it behind a label of "honesty" knowing we just aren't likely to get punched upside the head for it. Besides, there will be a thousand equally ill-mannered loudmouths agreeing with you, because so and so is fat or tall or short or skinny or stupid by some professional idiot's standards.

You see, I think we are being conditioned to conform to someone's idea of "average" and anything outside the norm must be ridiculed, eh? I have to say though, that average and mediocre are pretty much the same thing... and besides, who the hell is Bloomberg to tell me I can't have a gun in one hand and a 64 ounce soda in the other? One needs the gun to protect one's self from people who want to dictate diets, what's so hard to understand about that?
:biggrin:
"If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans." - Movie "Flypaper"
User avatar
neildarkstar
Jac's Hero of the Day
Jac's Hero of the Day
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby Elaura » Thu Feb 06, 2014 7:43 pm

You got that right. Jac and I just got back from our not-so-super Walmart. After months of waiting, they finally had .45 ammo back on the shelves. The clerk mentioned we could only buy three boxes. I figured if there was now a limit on how much I could buy, I wouldn't be surprised if it were per month, but fortunately, we're not there yet. It's only per day, with no limit on shotgun shells, until someone decides to bring one to school, I suppose.

I guess if I suddenly have enough money to buy more than just enough for target shooting, I'll have to start paying cash, to stay off anyone's list. At least they don't ask for my ID when I buy my diet rite . . . yet . . . but don't get me started on decongestant.

As for manners, you hit it on the head, Neil. Manners are an outdated notion, much like right and wrong, and the Constitution. I read a very interesting, well-written, well-thought out article recently about how the First Amendment applies to the Internet. It was quite thought-provoking, but several of the respondents said nothing about the content because they were offended that the writer, an American who admitted in the article he had no idea what the laws of other nations were or how they applied, seemed to be implying that the Internet was somehow limited only to the US.

I would have expected, since the article was referring to an amendment to the US Constitution, it was self-evident he was referring to how it applies in the US . . . but that didn't keep commenters from showing their asses by doing their best to show how insensitive he was and how arrogant Americans are. I won't even get into the TL;DR bullshit.

I suppose if we were to talk about shaming and how rude people can be these days, we could spend pages and pages discussing how America is the country the world loves to hate. How you aren't cool, unless you can bash the US and all it's citizens in three languages. It's truly amazing how nothing draws a cheering crowd faster than bashing the US and not the fun, stereotypical teasing, either. More the peaceful, Molotov-cocktail-throwing kind of bashing. We're not really even allowed to call our country America, or ourselves Americans, because we're somehow offending Canada, Mexico, and the whole of the South American Continent.

Maybe some people are reading this and thinking to themselves "well, that's because you're all . . ."

No, we aren't all. Not anymore than all Canadians are beer-swilling hockey fans, all Irish are drunken leprechauns, or all Muslims are terrorists. Our president is no more a typical American than the Queen of England is a typical Brit.

That's the thing about manners, everyone else is supposed to have them, but a lot of people think they're personally exempt. Especially if they can claim to have been offended first.
Available for weddings, funerals, hand fasting, and baptisms.
Image
User avatar
Elaura
Chaplain
 
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:52 am
Location: About ten feet to Jac's left.
Title: Mrs.
Gender: Female

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby fable2 » Fri Feb 07, 2014 12:46 am

As for manners, you hit it on the head, Neil. Manners are an outdated notion, much like right and wrong, and the Constitution.


Spot. On.

The Internet has just been an invitation for so many people to bring out their Inner Brat, and let fly with whatever insult comes to mind, for any reason, or no reason at all. And when the heads of government are completely corrupt, sold to the highest bidder, and trample the founding stone of the land--a glorious document, one that any country should be proud to exalt--then why should people feel they have to act differently? If we are going to be led by people who glorify selfishness, lying, thievery, and insensitivity, why should people act otherwise?

Sorry for the rant. But you touched a sore point that we obviously share.
User avatar
fable2
Wolflore Staff
 
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby Jac » Sat Feb 08, 2014 2:48 pm

One only has to look at t.v. shows like The Biggest Loser and America's Next Top Model to see how society as a whole views what considered beautiful. That and there's a difference between being slim and trim and looking anorexic if your body type isn't naturally thin.
User avatar
Jac
The Boss
 
Posts: 6009
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2011 8:36 pm
Location: Somewhere on the left side of insanity, the right side was taken.
Title: Elder Wolf

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby Elaura » Sun Feb 09, 2014 12:25 am

Which, more or less, brings us full circle.

The media, from reality TV, to the nightly news, to social media, has managed to convince most people that someone, ANYONE, has the right to tell us what is and is not acceptable. I'm guessing this is the root of why the battle cry of the young has changed from "Anarchy" to "Androgyny". This is probably why American Citizens have allowed the Constitution to be used as toilet paper by those who use the media to dictate to us.

By insinuating what one must be, or how one must look, or how much money one must have to be happy, they also manage to work in what one must and must not do to be considered "CORRECT". Correct (as in politically correct), has also been allowed to become synonymous with "ethical", "right", "moral" and, worst of all "lawful".

Neil used two incredibly apropos examples: 64 oz sodas and guns. I'd like to throw in, for your consideration, cigarettes and alcohol. If you think trends are harmless, let's start with soda. What's Bloomberg got against large cups of soda? Apparently they cause people to be overweight, and being overweight is bad for them, so it's okay for the government to LEGISLATE that a perfectly legal substance be controlled in order to prevent American Citizens from getting fat.

Okay, what's the proof that being overweight is unhealthy anyway? You can do your own research on this one. In the US, average lifespans have gone up and so have the number of people who are considered overweight. By the by, what is considered overweight has been changing faster than the "New Black", but we won't get into that right now. I will admit, many diseases and disorders can be aggravated by being overweight, but I take issue with anyone who says this CAUSES that, as in being overweight causes diabetes, or smoking causes cancer.

The way they measure unhealthy, as well as how they determine this causes that is fundamentally flawed. For instance, when you survey 10,000 people with diabetes and 51% are currently considered overweight, that doesn't mean being overweight causes diabetes.

Now, if you look at the population of the US, survey all the people who are considered (under current standards) to be overweight and more than 51% of them have diabetes, then you have a significant finding. You can apply this logic to the total number of people who drink 64 oz sodas and are overweight (again, by current standards), the total number of people who own guns AND have done harm to another with them, how many people drink alcohol or smoke cigarettes AND have developed some serious disease or disorder . . . THEN you have a significant finding.

In the absence of these numbers, what we have left is a bunch of people who feel they know better than the rest of us what is good for us. It is frightening when these people are given legislative privileges or manage to convince those that do that they are "correct". As I said, you can do the research yourself, but in the past ten years, legislative bodies have taken it upon themselves to test the waters with laws like the 64 oz soda being banned. Another would be the parents of an obese child being accused of child abuse/neglect.

They've already laid the groundwork with laws against other perfectly legal substances. Even going so far as to say American Citizens of legal voting age are prohibited from purchasing or consuming alcoholic beverages . . . with or without their parents' permission. I think we all realize beauty is an opinion being foisted upon us, but so is what is "healthy" for us, what is "safe" for us. So how long will it be before someone equates health with beauty and begins legislating against what they consider "ugly"?

Before you think I'm being ridiculous, keep in mind the US was founded on principles heavily influenced by religious oppression. Less than half a century later, by law, we can no longer practice our personal beliefs anywhere they might make someone else "uncomfortable" because it is no longer considered "correct". There again, in what studies were the total number of public Nativity scenes compared with the total number of people who felt oppressed by their very existence?

Be warned, when people start thinking they can tell you what is good/right/correct/moral/ethical/HEALTHY for you, the light you see at the end of the tunnel is not the Bluebird of Happiness welcoming you to Utopia. It's the train.
Available for weddings, funerals, hand fasting, and baptisms.
Image
User avatar
Elaura
Chaplain
 
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:52 am
Location: About ten feet to Jac's left.
Title: Mrs.
Gender: Female

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby neildarkstar » Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:33 am

One thing I'd like to mention regarding your post, Elaura. It's amazing how statistics are used to convey an apparent result that is actually quite misleading. It's the old quote (I don't remember who said it first) that there are lies, damned laies, and then there are statistics.

The point is that to say that the statistics regarding diabetes and the percentage of those that are overweight is quite misleading. You see, diabetes is a condition in which the cells of the body are unable to use insulin and thus sugar in an optimal fashion. The result is that the levels of sugar that remains in the bloodstream is comparatively quite high. Since the sugar cannot be properly used, the body (particularly the brain) feels that it is suffering from a lack of sugar, or even starving, and the end result is cravings of varying intensity for usable sugars. This generally causes the individual to snack on high carbohydrates, and often these same snacks also contain high levels of fats, cholesterol, and other components that cause weight gain. At the same time, there are also symptoms and effects such as nerve damage to feet and legs, organ failure due to the effects of high levels of blood sugar, and a general sense of "being unwell" that tend to result in a more sedentary lifestyle, thus aggravating the weight gain aspect.

In the end you see, it is not weight gain that causes diabetes, rather it is more often diabetes that creates weight gain. Similarly, it is not necessarily obesity that results in secondary conditions such as heart disease, rather it is the diabetes that is ultimately responsible in many cases. It is not politically correct to point out these facts however, because our society is more geared toward blaming and demonizing the ill for having the symptoms of their illness.

In fact, our society is more geared toward controlling everything we do, think, or say based on junk science, voodoo medicine, lying statistics, and just plain political expediency. To what purpose? If not money, then damned if I know, but if I ever find out why and who... or perhaps it's just racial insanity, eh?
:biggrin:
"If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans." - Movie "Flypaper"
User avatar
neildarkstar
Jac's Hero of the Day
Jac's Hero of the Day
 
Posts: 2839
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:57 pm

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby fable2 » Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:58 am

The only really good reason I can see for not being Rubenesque is if you go beyond that into areas that create 1) a strain on the heart, and 2) a strain on muscle tissue.

My wife unfortunately has that kind of body on both sides of her family. Her mother has had two hip replacements and shoulder pins put in, because the sheer weight is causing tremendous damage. Jan's not there yet, and she's got the discipline to avoid going that far, but she has put on a lot of weight since I first met her about 30 years ago. For me, the weight isn't an issue, aesthetically; for her, it is an issue, because while she's not at her mother's level, she could slip that far, and she has very bad knees. She's been told: lose the weight, or expect to get your kneecaps replaced in the near future.

I don't want to see her go through the pain. I will do anything to help her if she needs the surgery, but I know she'll hurt--not just from the surgery, but from the loss to pride. At least she doesn't feel too sensitive about it in front of others: I've done my level damndest to make her realize that whatever she weighs, it doesn't make a bit of difference to me. But you know how people are, and how the culture is.
User avatar
fable2
Wolflore Staff
 
Posts: 1172
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 6:44 pm

Re: When did Androgyny replace Anarchy?

Postby Elaura » Sun Feb 09, 2014 4:15 am

Sure do. I think the best way to look at it is that obesity is not preventable, it is treatable. Neil, I was hoping someone would point that out. I have diabetes on both sides of my family and it has always been painfully obvious that the diabetes (and the medications for it) cause the symptoms people believe are caused by being overweight.

Fable, while it's true the more weight a muscle (like the heart) or a joint has to move, the harder it has to work; it is a mistake for your wife to feel the fault is entirely hers to bear. Despite what our culture attempts to force us to believe, being overweight is not a choice. It is as much a disease to be treated by a specialist as anorexia, or a brain tumor.

Unless you're Tom Cruise, being overweight is not a flaw in one's character. Social bias has always placed the blame for weight problems on the sufferer and the very last bastion of that nasty "It's your own fault" attitude is toward those who are considered overweight. If someone is prescribed medicine that makes them sick, others are sympathetic. If someone is prescribed exercise that makes them sick, people feel perfectly within their rights to tell them they're lazy for not wanting to do it. Medical professionals, though they should know better, don't seem to even try to mask their "holier than thou" attitudes about weight.

With any disease or disorder, the patient must take an active role in their treatment. If they are given medication, their doctor expects them to take it and report any intolerable side-effects, so that the treatment can be modified. When a person decides enough is enough, that should be respected. The same is true of weight problems and if your wife's doctor doesn't understand that, she should get a referral to a specialist. "Exercise" is no more an adequate treatment for being overweight than morphine is a treatment for cancer. It manages one symptom, if you're lucky.

I don't want anyone to think I'm excusing someone who is an unhealthy weight from all responsibility for it, I'm not. My personal experiences with mental illness prevent me from being so delusional as to do that. Just as a schizophrenic can train him/herself to tell the difference between hallucinations and real stimuli, I have trained myself how to function in society with autism, or what would now be called Autism Spectrum Disorder. As a result, I know just how hard one has to work to overcome the so-called culturally unacceptable, especially when everyone blames you for it. I went undiagnosed and therefore untreated. I don't hold myself up as a shining example of self-treatment, nor do I consider myself cured, but I can damn sure sympathize with someone else who has an undiagnosed, untreated illness for which they are blamed.

Just as there is a spectrum of autism, there is a spectrum of weight disorders and from one end to the other, they are more easily handled by professionals, with the determination of the sufferer to make the most out of their own lives despite the illness. I wish your wife the best, Fable, and I hope she gets the professional help she needs and deserves. The two of you shouldn't have to do it all alone or feel like you've failed because you can't.
Available for weddings, funerals, hand fasting, and baptisms.
Image
User avatar
Elaura
Chaplain
 
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 12:52 am
Location: About ten feet to Jac's left.
Title: Mrs.
Gender: Female

PreviousNext

Return to Beauty and Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

  • Advertisement
cron