Equality

(I'm not bashing anything, so if you're going to flame me, forget it. This is one person's opinion, so deal with it.)

Something in mX today really made me think. Although I don't have the newspaper in front of me right now, someone said something to the effect of 'if we're all equal, then why must I get up, why must I.... ' I forgot the rest. The point is that this is a man talking to a woman (I assume). If we're all equal, why do men still have to appear chivalrous, give their seats to women on the train, and so on?

This got me thinking. So if we are all equals, then what about others like the disabled, the elderly. Should be be as though they are equal to us, and not get up, respecting this pride we think they have that perhaps they want to pretend that they are not as old, frail as they seem. Or perhaps that we think we should not get up for say, a one legged man because he think he would want to preserve his dignity, and to show we are not pitying him for being disabled and treat him as an equal?

This idea of equality now seems highly overrated. As far as we're concerned, people will always have a hierarchy. Women are on the bottom because we are and have been for a long time - don't flame me for that, you know it's true. Be it as it may that men think that their positions are well deserved, the hypocrites. (Oh yes, I am a girl.) You say a woman's place is the kitchen, then you dominate the head roles of commercial kitchens. Where is the logic in that? You just want to occupy all the positions of higher power.

Oh I remember, someone also wrote 'why should men give up their jobs so employers can show they are women-whatever.....' Perhaps these women are genuinely deserving. Perhaps the employers actions are a little fueled by their intention, however, perhaps they are genuinely highly skilled. Isn't the fact that you consider roles to be taken by women only because the company wants to present the image that it doesn't discriminate mean that you already think these women are not deserving of these roles? So much of this equality you speak of. You already assume that because a man did not gain this position, an unsuited woman has been given the job for the sake of reputation. Sure this may be important, but if this woman is in a position where she has to make important decisions, if she cannot handle the job, they might as well have just signed a death warrant for themselves.

Stop jumping to your own conclusions. You think of equality in this way because you are still considering yourselves to be superior, and thusly more deserving of the position than a woman is - because she is a woman and the company wants to look good?

In older times, perhaps chivalry was an act to belittle women, to show them that they were not able to do anything by feeling the need to help them down, to push their chair in for them to... whatever it may be. Was that the purpose of these actions? You are helping her because you genuinely think she needs help in doing these things, or are you helping her because you think that perhaps it's something she can't achieve? Hmm? Is this not a new way of considering this situation?

I have no problems if you are genuinely helping me because I need the help, say if I'm juggling three bags, and a folder and trying to open a door with my elbow. Then I would appreciate it because you are seeing me as an equal and as someone who would want help if you consider yourself in that situation.

Nowadays I seem to consider acts of chivalry as perhaps more of a recognition that you exist and that they want to be helpful. Perhaps maybe a little repayment for the past? This is how I see it.

I don't see why people have to be forced into gender-like things. Such a good example is on the front of the newspaper today, the Sydney Morning Herald, with the headline 'Sexless in the city: a gender revolution". I'm not lying if I said I dislike being female. I don't know if I want to be male either. Being neutral the moment seems like a good idea, although I don't know what it says about population from now on (I don't think my children will really be missed.... I might regret writing this sentence...). People should stop forcing people into gender stereotypes and girls should not have to feel so conspicuous if they are the only girl in a group of 20 guys. (Meaning there should be less differences between the way genders think.)

Why do I have to wear a skirt to a formal occasion?

(more may be added later)

Just write it out.

This topic goes way back to the time of the just-post-HSC, or possibly during HSC when they were mentioning that in future years, students would be able to do their exams using their laptop instead of writing on their exam papers.

Of course, not only is such an idea highly difficult to completely integrate - although I'm sure they're working on it - one of the issues is the fact that it appears that they intend for the students to use the computers being distributed to Year 7 and Year 9 students. This means that perhaps a student would be able to cheat, but of course, there should be ways in which this would work - I'll leave it up to the experts.'

But the problems of such a suggestion(?) is not what I want to be dealing with.

It is the fact that this does not really solve the problem that is. What problem, you ask? Please excuse me for not structuring this better, but the reason idea was presented in the first place was because of the dropping standards of students' handwriting, making it harder for teachers to mark exam papers with speed, while still giving the student all the marks that they can.

I do not admit to have the best handwriting but I do try hard to make my handwriting at least understandable. If it suddenly becomes that exams will be able to be taken using the computer - not that it is unheard of in our technology driven world - this does not address the problem, and instead just makes it worse.

If it is important now for students to be able to type quickly to be able to write as much as they can, and demonstrate their ideas as well as they can, this would mean a new focus on typing speed rather than handwriting, and handwriting will only get worse. There are reports all the time of students unable to write properly, and so on, yet this only fuels it.

Isn't being able to use a computer also a big disadvantage though? Whereas us before were required to carefully plan our responses to questions, this means that it is not required of a student to plan now, as they are able to go back and edit. It is not as if they cannot allow editing, as even when handwritten, students will go back and change words, add words. It's just that more words are able to be added seamlessly with a computer, not to mention if something such as using timing indications for the edits could be implemented to solve this, this would just cause more work, and possibly training for teachers.

So while I deviate from the point a little, how does changing to typing out exams solve anything? It is only going to create a different problem, and no doubt things like handwriting are going to disappear, right?

Although new technologies appear on the internet that now have a larger focus towards handwritten things, which step is in the right direction?

(Check out Tegaki-e, the hand-written/drawn blogging site. I have no confidence in my artistic ability, so I've not used it, but it is a very interesting site to browse.)

DV - No, I didn't mispell DVD.

Not in any way do I count myself as an expert on this subject or can I have said I've read anything particularly scientific about this subject, but this is a topic I wanted to consider from a somewhat odd point of view, in my opinion. Having not experienced it (not what others would define as it?), nor having studied this kind of topic, you can disregard what I have to say. These are just my opinions and observations.

I was reading a book a while ago - as I said, in no way scientific, it could actually be described as pretty 'trashy' - and it had a case of domestic violence in it. The beginning of the book showed the main character, a social worker working for a woman's shelter, talking to one of her clients. She was a 'battered wife'. I observed that the social worker didn't seem to understand the ... victim's mentality. The victim's situation was reaching a dangerous point, and the social worker at this point tells the victim:

"You need to get out of that house. Take these threats seriously, and get yourself and your kids out of harm's way."

Although this seems to be a reasonable piece of advice to tell a victim,often it's not something they see as possible. If I were in the social worker's position, I am sure I would be thinking the same thing, giving the same advice, but is this not because we have never faced the same sort of situation (and if we had, would be necessarily be a social worker now? Have the qualifications? Not be dead? Anything is possible of course).

The victim is scared, because her husband used to be in the military (a special sort of black ops like unit?), drinks, has anger management issues (possibly because of his dispatchment from the military or something?) and has threatened to kill her if she leaves. Knowing what her husband is capable of, the victim is unable to comply, and is so frightened because of her first hand experience of her brutality, that she cannot think otherwise. This is where the social worker cannot begin to understand, as she has never met this husband, and only knows the information the victim has provided.

The victim had also told her husband that she had gone to the shelter, in fear because her husband wanted to know where she had been going. The social worker is supportive the whole time, trying to be encouraging, producing ideas which may give her some hope. I'm not saying that she's not like a model of a social worker, however, I wonder how we can begin to compare to these people's experiences and be able to deal with them effectively without having experienced it ourselves. Of course, such a situation is brutal and it's not as though I encourage that people face these kinds of situations, not to mention that each person's experience of DV could be different, however ... I just feel that perhaps sometimes the social workers cannot think from the victim's point of view, so caught up in trying to help them.

Of course, if everyone thought from the victim's point of view, I hardly think any case would ever be resolved. Therein lies my dilemma within this post, and with many things within my life. Although I can see how this way is probably the best way to be able to deal with such matters, it doesn't seem right, as client and social worker somehow do not seem to have any sort of crossing over with each other. It seems almost as if the social worker is missing the point. Yet that is probably not so.

The social worker is there to provide hope, isn't that right? Also, they should maintain a professional distance, otherwise all cases would affect them too greatly to continue their work. They could possibly be traumatised and need to consult a psychiatrist - hence why my parents say a psychiatrist is the worst job, having tolisten to everyone's problems. Not to mention there are greater things than merely having the experience of being abused that influence a victim's mentality. It's not possible for a social worker to be able to deal with everything.

Although I can understand all this, and this post is not essentially conclusive, it's just a little sight into what I think of this. I commend social workers for their work, but from my fortunate third part point of view, I wonder why these social workers seem to be missing some sort of point, seem to not be addressing all of their client's problems. Without knowing enough of this subject myself, perhaps I can reach no conclusion, but I hope that this has inspired some thought in at least someone.

Looking Back ... Ah, "Conflicting Perspectives" ...

Just a little revising of my previous post on The Slap by Christos Tsiolkas.

I can see where it was wrong that a man who has no relationship to the child decided to take it into his own hands to discipline the child. Certainly, perhaps he should have waited (but then again, as Mr Tsiolkas mentioned in his interview, sometimes our first reaction is a violent, aggressive one) but in such a circumstance, who knows what is the right or wrong course of action. But I think Anouk has a point (since I finally managed to read past her chapter.. xD Maybe I should finish before I keep throwing around opinions). I still feel Hugo deserved it though, and admire Mr Tsiolkas' ability to formulating these different points of view.

In a way we are positioned to see the event in certain ways, aren't we? Manipulated, somewhat? But ultimately it is us that makes our mind as to what we think, although the story may influence our views. I still view Rosie and Gary as pretty weak parents though. In their letting of their son form his own identity (etc) they're just giving him loose rein to be wild. The method is not isolation from any sort of media, but prevention of them watching violence in particular. This isn't always an easy task, but perhaps it's not abstinence from violence which is the solution, but proper explanation of it. My parents have allowed us to watch violence, and they still don't like me watching MA 15+ movies (I am well over 15 now!) but they have always let us know what the proper way of acting is. I'm not saying my experience is the best solution, but I feel it has been efficient in ways. (Sure, I might feel like I would be able to take down a molester when I would probably freeze like anyone else, but still... haha)

Oh, and younger male and older female relationships are not that uncommon (I'm sure you know) although probably unusual, yes, that Anouk is 43 and Rhys is 22. Older female and younger male relationships seem to be popular these days though - there was a news report today on that, and speed dating. Quotes are "females come into their prime later in life, and men well... *laughs*". Well, I'm sure we all know how to finish that...? Although the age gap may make these sort of relationships seem pedophile-ish (not so much when both partners are over the 20-ish mark though, in my opinion, though I have no real idea), I still think it's how a person feels that matters. Sure, it's against a lot of the conventions of our society (oh, apart from the young arranged marriage type relationships and medieval expected-to-bear-children-at-16 type relationships), but what other people think doesnt always matter - although yes, it does help... xD

I find the book pretty sexually explicit, really, and although I can read it without it minding my teenage sensibilities too much, I still rather my friends not know too much about it. xD We are a fairly 'innocent' type of area - seriously. To be expected from the blurb on the back, supposedly, but I would say I'm a fairly 'softly-spoken' person, and the swearing does get to me a little. I don't swear if I can help it. If I'm so miffed that I do, I apologise, to thin air if I have to (anyone!). But this isnt about me. :)

You're probably tired of my incessant rambling... Sorry. I have very strong views, but I don't like to have to make decisions.

The Slap by Christos Tsiolkas

Link: http://www.allenandunwin.com/default.aspx?page=632

The Slap is a new book written by Award winning Christos Tsiolkas, but I'm not just here to talk about the book and how good it is - truth be I havent finished reading it - but I watched an interview which he did (of which is a rough transcript of a section of it in the above link) and felt that perhaps there are a few things I would like to... get off my chest so to speak. This isn't criticism, just a 'conflicting perspective' I suppose you could put it.

Before I begin, people who have looked at this blog at all may perhaps realise that I am a young person myself - a more middling member of Generation Y. In the excerpt of the transcript, Mr Tsiolkas says: "I was writing a book about family, about the relationships between young people and their elders." This somewhat struck a cord with me since I see myself as a fairly conservative type of young person (I don't think you see that many these days though, really).

But I'm getting ahead of myself. Above all, the book is about middle-class suburbia. I have to admit that perhaps I am a little more well off than the characters presented in the book, but not necessarily. I am not Greek, Indian or simply 'Australian' but I have my own cultural identity. As an asian, and as Chinese, we perhaps have our own ways of discipline. For me, if I did something which was marked as 'bad' in my parent's book, then there were a number of possible punishments. First was the cane, which was a narrow piece of bamboo which she hit over out hands - front and back - if we were particularly 'naughty' (I put that in inverted commas because it wasnt necessarily like yelling or misbehaving - in fact I dont think I hardly ever did that much, it was mostly arguing with my brother, probably), and the number of times depended on the severity of what we'd done - or how loud we were, I suppose. So, from a young age, there was this discipline in our lives. If we didnt stop even with the threat of the cane, we would have to kneel (we were allowed to kneel on the carpet at least), not allowed to sit on our feet, and hold our earlobes, without putting too much stress on them (i.e. pulling on them, but who would with the threat of stretched earlobes?). When I spat out a mussel once because I really didnt want to eat it, I got the generally common punishment of no dinner.

But a recount of my punishments isnt what I'm here to say either (and staying up to say either). It's to make a point, either the cultural differences, once again, or perhaps benefits and disadvantages of discipline. In a way, I've always been afraid of the touch of a cane again and so seek to hide secrets from my parents, but in a way, I am always unfailingly polite to everyone. So in relation to my relationship with my parents, that isnt the greatest relationship ever, and I feel more fear on my part for doing something 'wrong' than anything - although now I'm more afraid of the yelling than the cane - but my relationship with my elders, I believe is superb.

I have had my own small share of experiences with the 'younger generation' so people of my age group like to coin it. Younger grades of children treat senior students without respect which seek for even us to go 'what has gone wrong with the world'. Most of my grade is also respectful of their elders, yet juniors in lower grades can push past us without bothering to say 'excuse me' or 'sorry'. Although not exactly weaned to be polite - I was never taught to stand up and give my seat or in certain mannerisms, but these are things which I have picked up of my own accord, perhaps because of this slightly irrational fear of 'adults'... initially anyway. (Ok, I wasnt afraid of being hit or anything, I simply found adults to be commanding and intimidating and they were to be obeyed almost without question).

"How was it that these young men had not been taught one of the basic universals of human culture, respect for our elders? Or was it best to raise a generation critical of their elders? What did the incident say about my generation as parents, mentors, teachers, citizens? The people that come off worst in my novel are my own generation, those of us at the tail end of the “baby boomers” or “generation x”. I will leave it to the individual reader to decide if I have been too harsh about their selfishness and myopia. I will suggest that the most hopeful voices are those of Connie and Richie, the young people. I did that deliberately. Young people get a bad press. I wanted to point that wagging finger at myself."

In a way I'm happy to see that the young people in the novel get a more positive light shed onto them, and yet also not. In a way, we ourselves are to blame for our behaviour. You can be raised in certain ways, but who is to say you cannot go out there and find out for yourself what is right and wrong. Upbringing certainly plays a strong part in it, but because I was hit occasionally (I know I make it sound like I was beaten or something, xD, but my parents were good, even if I feared that cane) doesnt mean that not I should cower away from all adult contact or something (hard though, seeing as I'm growing up). We form our own identity. I acknowledge this is hard in certain circumstances, but one shouldn't always try to move with the majority (if this paragraph is making much sense at all. I'm very sorry).

Something I dont think I have mentioned - I go to a public school. For sure, it's a Selective one, which means that it isnt the usual school with the usual rumours of vandalism and drugs and smoking in the grounds and so on, but we have our share of smokers even if most of us (me included) are much too ignorant to notice anything going on. I have seen girls smoking and been absolutely astonished. There's not such a great divide as we might think. I have friends from private schools and one girl who now attends my school attended a private school prior to year 7. Simply because of the stigma surrounding private school students says that these types of students are stuck-up isnt necessarily true. They act as normal as any other student that I know of. The only difference I can see with the school I attend and a so-called normal public school is that there is a lack of vandalism (from our own students) and drug-related issues, plus lack of boy-girl issues, as we are a single-sex school. :)

I know this discussion doesnt exactly run smoothly, but those are the issues I wanted to discuss. This cultural difference of course may play an impact somewhat, and all families will have their own way of discipline. The way I see it, no discipline is not a solution, but overly so is, of course, a problem. Overall, I would probably prefer my parents method: "strike fear into their hearts" than simply letting a child off and being violent. I see Hugo as being wrong, as may many others, whether or not that was or wasn't the singular purpose. A 'wild child' like Hugo who feels no qualms at kicking and hurting others and yet doesnt like to be hit himself is just wrong in my opinion. I am of the school of, you could say, what's fair is fair (I can't remember what I really wanted to day). If you inflict pain, you must be willing to recieve it. I like the question posed just after the slap. Was it alright for Hugo to kick and hurt people, yet it also be wrong for Harry to discipline the child with a slap?

I can see the instinctive reaction rising already. The first response is, of course, violent and aggressive. Perhaps its my own upbringing that makes me feel that a bit of shock in this instance would work - but what other way is there to discipline a 'hysterical' child? Hugo is beyond reason, there's no explanation for it, but he is simple uncontrollable unless he has his mother's nipple in his mouth. This image presented is off the molly-coddling mother and the kid who always runs to his mother. Overprotection won't do, but neither will leniency.

I dont speak from experience, how can I apart from facing discipline to myself? But I do have an imagination and a strong point of view towards the way 'elders' are treated. "Where has 'respect your elders' gone to?" What we all need to do, perhaps, is build up our EQ in order to be able to think rationally in such a situation. Of course, reason may not work, but hitting should be a last option. I, for one, see no real option, to be honest, in such a scenario apart from hitting the child and 'smacking some sense into him' so to speak.

Such a minor case is not assault. Bother the police with more important things. They have better things to do.

Just to get this off my chest, I feel that Hugo deserved that slap (and many more!) thoroughly! I may only still be a child myself, but I cannot stand out-of-control children like that - which is why I will never become a teacher. xD

People Falling In Love with Fictional Characters

It's true that I'm tired of people falling in love with fictional characters. Not that I dont understand where they might be coming from, but is there a need to publicise it? I understand that not everyone is like me, however, I personally do not find that falling in love with a fictional character is something worth doing.

First of all, they are obviously not real. If they're not real, what's the point in loving them? I can understand admiration, obsession - which may be what this supposed love comes from in the first place - but I cannot understand this falling in love with a character that does not, and never will exist.

Second of all, in the case of this type of character would not exist in real life anyway. Take the very obvious example first of all - Edward Cullen, boy protagonist of the series Twilight. I hear fans all the time - 'I love Edward. He's the hottest guy ever' or something along those lines. Now, I dont think this love is in the sense of 'Oh, thanks for doing that for me, I love you' in the sense of respect, thankfulness and the associated, but a feeling of attraction for the character (That which will bring me to my third point). This character is a vampire, and as far as we know - they do not exist. Besides, even if they do, your chances of meeting one are zero to none.

Thirdly, those feelings of attraction stem from what? Admiration of the character's morals, their character (as it is called - the way they do things, etc is what I mean)? We dont even know what this character looks like and you're here telling me he's the hottest guy? How the heck do you know that? Your mental image? Just because the guy seems hot and perfect to you doesn't mean he does for others. Otherwise, what does he have, an adaptive face to suit everyone? Just because you find someone attractive doesnt mean they are to all, and in no way should you fall in love with your mental image of someone either. That kind of love I would think is superficial.

(I take time out here to say, in my opinion, a lot of fans of books such as Twilight often seem to be a little brainless in some cases, not understanding all that much - check fan sites, people sometimes seem barely able to spell. No offence to fans, I know a lot of you are highly intelligent, and I would know. There are also some very very good fanfics out there, but some are just rubbish, plain and simple. People may be in love with Edward Cullen, but some people have it right, I suppose. I neither critique or overly fan Twilight, and I have to agree on the point that Edward is somewhat a control freak and needs a little mental help - Edward really can be controlling to the extreme. Is that really someone you love? Go for it.)

Fourth point, they already have their own significant other, in most instances. Again, taking the well-known Twilight book back into this, Isabella Swan is Edward Cullen's love interest. Why fall in love with someone who is already 'taken'? To me, this is like taking your friend's girl/boyfriend. Don't tell me it might happen to me, I tell myself never to do it - my friend's happiness is worth to me more than my own, and if their feelings are requited to each other, what right do I have? It's kind of the same for fictional characters. It makes me seriously want to say 'dream on' - and you will, I know. I can see how people will blow this point off, but to me, I think it's very much valid.

This fifth point isn't all that valid, but is for people falling in love with an actor who plays a fictional character. Admiration of a actor is often, okay, since it happens, I can understand it and they are someone real - real flesh and blood who exist. But people who fall in love with a character for their actor - how they look, often - isnt something that seems right. I can see where they come from if they're falling in love with the character's character, but for what they look like is once again - rather superficial.

So, I'm glad to get that off my chest. Falling in love with characters - yes it does happen, I admit that perhaps I might have once or twice. Perhaps the real issue here is my annoyance at those who decide to publically announce it and showcase their love of a character, or perhaps the issue here is my annoyance stemming from my not wanting to admit love and maybe even envying people who freely admit they love someone. Who knows?

But in either case, I'm still tired of people falling in love with fictional characters as it is a futile and useless exercise for sure, and seems pointless as they dont even exist in reality, nor may even have the possibility to exist in reality.

Ownership

Isnt it amusing that whenever I come on, I decide to be extra chatty? Each time - two posts! Anyway...

Ownership is a strange thing, but what defines ownership? With today's world, you can own things digitally or physically, but do you gain that real sense of ownership? Or is digitally owning just what it looks like - a bunch of pixels and numbers?

For me personally, I like to own things physically and digitally. Although physically is often preferred, it takes up room and not to mention is highly difficult to gather everything important in the case of an emergency. Digitally, however, is compact and rather convenient usually, but on the other hand, is just strings of numbers and has the potential to corrupt (I would know). Both, of course, have the ability to get lost (not to mention losing files among the thousands of files).

Physically owning things often gives the owner a sense of accomplishment. To be able to physically behold it and claim that you have it is a great thing. Digitally owning things - even programs - can also give great feelings of pride. 'Oh, I own the latest version of Photoshop!' Envy. To sit back and see the great piles of files you carefully collected also gives a feeling of accomplishment.


So I guess it comes down to this. Are you a computer person or what?

Back to myself. Look around this blog. You can see the anime/manga images well. I love to collect manga books. I find it convenient as I dont need power, only some light, to read them, although they take up so much space and money. I like owning them and being able to say, 'Yes, I own all of this series'.

But then, I also like collecting images. See an image on the internet of a particular anime/manga? Bang, save it. Another. Save that too.

This idea of ownership, you could say, is very dear to my heart. I love to own things. That's why I spend so much money on books. That's why my computers and USBs are frequently out of memory. That's why my room is so messy - it's full of books and papers and junk. I want to know all there is to know on certain things - even though I am deathly lazy and a procrastinator.

I want a lot. I want to own a lot. I admit it. (Makes me think, am I realy intelligent at all or incredibly stupid and highly ambitious?)

There are many reasons for this, of course. Ownership of it allows ease of access, if it's books or something like that. If it's a house, you feel secure, accomplished. If it's digital things like programs, you feel accomplished, well-equipped for whatever work you need - well prepared. If it's a radio, it's ease of access, convenience, accomplishment.

All in all, ownership, I guess, makes people feel good. If you own something that you really want - obviously, otherwise you just hate it - you feel great about it. Just like a guy with a ferrarri. He likes sports cars, he has one, he's happy.

But then, I guess you can think, if that's true - why do I need to own so much? Or want to own so much?