I have a new excuse for lapses in timing of posts, and this one is better than the busy-working excuse. I have been having infuriating internet connection issues. At this time, I would like to advise anyone who gets their high-speed net through Comcast or is thinking about it to switch to/choose something else. Apparently, some people in Chicago pay $60 a month to have this junk when you can get DSL for as little as $15 a month. We don't even have to pay that much where I'm originally from for Comcast high-speed, and it seems to work better there than it does in Chicago. I guess many things in the big cities are a huge rip-off other than, say, housing, public transportation and groceries...
I finally just broke down and did the only thing I really could do, seeing as how I am living in someone else's apartment for the summer--I got an internet connection through my cell phone service. Unfortunately, this is little better than dial-up. It takes a minute for every-freaking-thing to load. If it were up to me, DSL or wireless people would have been out here asap. There's nothing worse to me than being without the internet.
Oh, and look--the second I start a post to complain about Comcast, the lights all come on the modem again! Weird things like that happen all the time. For example, within 5 minutes of getting my internet-through-T-mobile service working, the Comcast modem started working again when it hadn't worked at all for over 24 hours. And for over a week the service has been going in and out constantly. If this Comcast account were mine, I'd call and curse those people out. And they're not the slightest bit helpful, either. They just say they have to send a technician out, and then the technician probably doesn't know anything, either. I've noticed that pattern with anything technology-related. Anytime you need help with technology, the "experts" don't know anything. I've learned that going to the sketchy people like hackers for just about any tech problem will get it solved with the smallest amount of hassles.
Other than that, nothing else really to report. Well, no, that's not true. I have been e-mailing back and forth with this woman from the online site my friend Nikki wanted me to try and meet someone from. It's weird, because she's not really the kind of person I'd expect to meet through online ads or dating services. And I guess she's queer, but she never really says anything about it...which is good, but I also think to myself, "Okay, is she really gay?" I wouldn't be surprised if that's one thing some gays have thought about me, as well. And when I say she doesn't seem like the kind of person, it's hard to go into without being more detailed than I want because not only do I try to protect my identity in this blog but I try to protect that of others. I guess I can say it's her profession, her intellect...and with "intellect," there are tons of intelligent people online, but I mean our e-mails are "intellectual," I guess. Nothing about dating or anything like that. They have more depth. And when you respond to ads, that's not really what two people do.
Another thing that has surprised me about her is she seems serious about meeting. She actually responded to an ad I posted, which wasn't really meant to be an ad, to be honest. It was more like my weird sense of humor, just making fun of people who post on that particular site because they're all so incredibly shallow and nitpicky. And I've noticed that about online dating ads in general, but this site is definitely the worst. People always put their little quirks out there in online ads anywhere, are really specific and then want to meet a really specific type and/or someone just like them...which I think is quite unrealistic. So that was the gist of my ad, and I emphasized that I was looking for friends, first and foremost, and then see what happens. Anyway, I got way more responses than I thought I would, and almost none of those people kept in touch. They dropped off, usually after one e-mail. But this woman has been sticking to it and trying to schedule a time to meet, and I think that's cool, even though I wasn't necessarily serious when I put the ad up.
One thing about her, which might be fine for a friend, is she is definitely one of those people whom I feel like I need to be "on" with. I wrote about this a little in other posts, but basically what that means is that when I'm around certain kinds of people I feel like I always need to be serious, mature and intelligent. Honestly, I don't like that, definitely not in a romantic interest...which we're not at that stage, so that's why I say it might be fine. And then I sense there's an age difference, and that makes it even worse because I feel like I need to be "on" with older people, as well. I guess that might be why, traditionally, my friends and associates have tended to be younger than I am. This is despite the fact that I grew up with everyone around me being older, and I think that's actually the reason why. I did mature faster than people my age, and I do think I'm more mature now than most people my age. But I just get tired of always being one way. And especially with my going into a career like law, I definitely want to leave the lawyer facade at work and be someone completely different when I am away from work. I just like to be goofy, say what comes to mind, crack jokes, etc.
Anyway, there's more I could report, but for privacy reasons I'm trying to save it for later on in the summer.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Update & Workplace Q
I haven't wanted to admit this in my blog, but since I haven't been writing as often as I should and I owe you--here goes:
What do you think about dating in the workplace? You see, most of the time when people think about dating someone at work, they are thinking about a co-worker. Now, I'm not thinking about dating anyone at work, and I don't really know what I think about the topic in general. I do know that no one should date someone they work for.
It's nothing serious, but I'm kind of developing a crush on one of the women who hired me and for whom I now work. This I didn't see coming. I admit I kind of wondered if I'd meet a co-worker or something like that this summer that would interest me, but I never thought I'd like someone I work for. Another thing that's surprising about it is she is, in my opinion, significantly older than I am. To some people, the age gap that exists between us wouldn't really be a big deal. For me, anyone who is about 4 years older or younger than I am is cutting it close, and anyone beyond that is out of my range. Of course, I'm not strict about this, and I have dated someone who is older than I usually think about allowing.
This woman just doesn't seem that "old," i.e. she doesn't seem or look her age. And it's funny, because one of my last posts was about how impossible it is for a woman to be nice, pretty and intelligent...and, well, she seems to be all three. Then again, I don't know her that well. And then again, I have noted that female lawyers seem to be exceptions to many observations I've had about women throughout my life--they are consistently more preferable and tolerable than the average woman for someone like me. I just like talking to her, and she is my favorite person in the office. She's really easy to talk to. She has a nice smile and a cute laugh, two of my favorite things. I think she's married, though, and I'm pretty sure she's straight...which, I tend not to get serious feelings for straight women, so I'm not worried about that happening here. I would like for us to be friends after the summer is over, though.
Anyway, it is definitely past my bedtime now, but that's my update from the working world!
What do you think about dating in the workplace? You see, most of the time when people think about dating someone at work, they are thinking about a co-worker. Now, I'm not thinking about dating anyone at work, and I don't really know what I think about the topic in general. I do know that no one should date someone they work for.
It's nothing serious, but I'm kind of developing a crush on one of the women who hired me and for whom I now work. This I didn't see coming. I admit I kind of wondered if I'd meet a co-worker or something like that this summer that would interest me, but I never thought I'd like someone I work for. Another thing that's surprising about it is she is, in my opinion, significantly older than I am. To some people, the age gap that exists between us wouldn't really be a big deal. For me, anyone who is about 4 years older or younger than I am is cutting it close, and anyone beyond that is out of my range. Of course, I'm not strict about this, and I have dated someone who is older than I usually think about allowing.
This woman just doesn't seem that "old," i.e. she doesn't seem or look her age. And it's funny, because one of my last posts was about how impossible it is for a woman to be nice, pretty and intelligent...and, well, she seems to be all three. Then again, I don't know her that well. And then again, I have noted that female lawyers seem to be exceptions to many observations I've had about women throughout my life--they are consistently more preferable and tolerable than the average woman for someone like me. I just like talking to her, and she is my favorite person in the office. She's really easy to talk to. She has a nice smile and a cute laugh, two of my favorite things. I think she's married, though, and I'm pretty sure she's straight...which, I tend not to get serious feelings for straight women, so I'm not worried about that happening here. I would like for us to be friends after the summer is over, though.
Anyway, it is definitely past my bedtime now, but that's my update from the working world!
Black-On-White Crime
I've really been out of the blogging loop, so I don't know if anyone else has written about this. It is a story about four or so blacks attacking two whites who were out on a date. And so, apparently, because a group of blacks attacked some whites, that automatically makes it a hate crime. Or because of the vicious nature of the attacks, that makes it a hate crime. Many whites are jumping to call it a hate crime.
You know...I'm really getting tired of the growing tendency of whites to play the victim. It just seems like being a victim is really fashionable nowadays. It needs to stop. I am certain hate crimes happen against whites for various reasons. But just because someone happens to be gay, that doesn't make it a gay hate crime. Just because someone happens to be Jewish, that doesn't make it a Jewish hate crime. And just because someone is white, that doesn't make it a white hate crime. Incredibly gruesome same-race attacks happen all the time but other identities are involved--oftentimes gender. No one calls those hate crimes.
Here's a difference between the most publicized white-on-black crimes that have been labelled hate crimes vs situations such as this one that some people are so angry over its not being called a hate crime as well: those situations usually have some sort of indication that race was a motive other than the fact that the victims and the perpetrators were of different racial backgrounds. Um, like "nigger" being said by the perpetrator a ridiculous number of times as in the Rodney King situation. Or police officers who aren't supposed to be randomly stopping anybody and beating the hell out of them, yet do engage in this behavior and only seem to do this to black males.
When I hear whites ask why nobody ever considers black-on-white crime hate crimes, the first thing I think, honestly, is...black men commit so much crime anyway...how could one possibly tell the difference between what they do as a hate crime and what they do as business as usual? Black men victimize everyone, regardless of race. And if I'm black and thinking like this, I don't see why whites wouldn't think like this. In fact, I'm certain many do. And then, as I did with this Knoxville case, I remember all the crazy things white men do...and then I just get angry with men. You see, I see this case as an example of gender and crime in our society, not race and crime. Men commit crime, and it's getting out of control when two people can't even go on a date without something completely insane happening to them. Whites have tried to make this a racial discussion when I feel what we need to do is wake up and say enough of the violence, period. And we need to get real about who is making us feel unsafe in America. It's not just black men, and it's not always about race. But oftentimes, there is a gender trend to observe. One woman was mentioned in this crime, I believe, but crime is overwhelmingly male in America.
You say black-on-white violence is played down. Then why the hell was I unable to watch "The Young & the Restless" for about a year all because OJ Simpson allegedly murdered his white wife and one of her many white boy toys? And what about Kobe Bryant allegedly raping some white girl? And why weren't these considered hate crimes? You can say that these cases were covered ad nauseam because of the celebrity factor, but be honest--black men are on the news for committing crimes--any crime--daily, nightly and midday. And if it's a black male, they'll say it's a black male, show his picture and sometimes even give out his home address. When it's a white male, depending on where you live, the media won't do anything but report the crime and then move on to the next story. And when it's a black person who is the victim, no one really cares. When it's a white person who is the victim, everyone's talking the maximum sentence or the death penalty...which is exactly what's going on with this Knoxville case.
Let's go back to my point about clear racial motivation. Now, just because a black person has white friends and otherwise socializes with whites doesn't mean they aren't capable of a hate crime or don't hate white people. To be honest with you, every black person I know has expressed at some time or another that they don't like white people...and, yet, they interact with whites on a regular basis. And since I'm in law school, most of these blacks I'm talking about are blacks who grew up around whites, have white friends, know how to interact with whites without seeming "militant" or racist and so on...but many of them are militant and/or racist, more so than I am. My friend Nikki, who I've written about in this blog in regards to her obsessive attraction to white males, has several white friends and has expressed dislike towards whites on several occasions. I won't say all blacks do it, but a lot of blacks live with this dual feeling towards white people. I think there's a piece of nearly every black person that feels hatred towards whites, given history, our forced social status in society and just general ongoing racial discrimination/inequality...but many of us control it and live with it.
Basically, we can dislike, even hate, whites and deal with it because we have to. This is not our world. We can't hate groups of people and arrange to never have to deal with them like whites can. My feelings towards whites are very mutable, and I would guess the same is true for the majority of blacks. Sometimes, one white person can say/do something and reflect badly on all whites for me.
The article actually makes a point that I have made in this blog before, i.e. the majority of crimes are same-race. As far as blacks allegedly attacking whites more than whites attacking blacks, that doesn't surprise me. But I don't think that means what white people would like it to mean. As I mentioned, whites can arrange to be away from groups they hate. So if whites attack us, a lot of times they'd have to be looking for us. That's not as true for blacks--whites are often everywhere we go. And some of those stories will be lies, because some whites still lie about blacks harming them. And, as I said, black men do commit a lot of crime, so much of that crime will not be attributable to racial motives so much as the ordinary course of black-committed crime. And if it's a situation such as how the Knoxville case started out, i.e. carjacking, that makes sense, too--whites tend to have more resources and/or nicer resources, so of course blacks will attack them more than other blacks.
As far as coverage, if there's one thing I've noticed being from the South is, other than what kind of crime it is, where the crime (or other big news story) takes place tends to matter a lot in terms of whether or not it'll get covered. Almost nothing big that happens in Tennessee gets national coverage--not the consistently devastating weather Tennessee experiences seemingly at least once a year, not school shootings, and not "hate crimes." The TN/Arkansas area had a Columbine before the Columbine, and TN had a Virginia Tech before Virginia Tech...but I wonder if anyone from anywhere besides TN, Arkansas and maybe Mississippi know about it. Let something happen in Los Angeles or New York. I'm not saying every white-on-black crime in those areas would make the national news, but they'd have better odds of making it than one coming out of Knoxville, TN. Nobody gives a damn about Knoxville. Those blacks would have had to kill about 30 white people for a Knoxville crime to make the national news, i.e. the Virginia Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. TN just doesn't make the news.
Similarly, the media picks and chooses which gruesome white-on-white stories it wants to make a huge deal out of. Why Elizabeth Smart vs some other kidnapped or runaway kid? There are tons of them every year. Why Jon-Benet Ramsey? Why Laci and Scott Peterson? And why when these kinds of things involve blacks do we not hear about them every-damn-day on the news like we have with the three above-mentioned stories?
The desire of whites to blow this Knoxville thing up as a racial double standard while ignoring other issues and questions I've raised just goes to show how important race is in America, more so than any other identity.
You know...I'm really getting tired of the growing tendency of whites to play the victim. It just seems like being a victim is really fashionable nowadays. It needs to stop. I am certain hate crimes happen against whites for various reasons. But just because someone happens to be gay, that doesn't make it a gay hate crime. Just because someone happens to be Jewish, that doesn't make it a Jewish hate crime. And just because someone is white, that doesn't make it a white hate crime. Incredibly gruesome same-race attacks happen all the time but other identities are involved--oftentimes gender. No one calls those hate crimes.
Here's a difference between the most publicized white-on-black crimes that have been labelled hate crimes vs situations such as this one that some people are so angry over its not being called a hate crime as well: those situations usually have some sort of indication that race was a motive other than the fact that the victims and the perpetrators were of different racial backgrounds. Um, like "nigger" being said by the perpetrator a ridiculous number of times as in the Rodney King situation. Or police officers who aren't supposed to be randomly stopping anybody and beating the hell out of them, yet do engage in this behavior and only seem to do this to black males.
When I hear whites ask why nobody ever considers black-on-white crime hate crimes, the first thing I think, honestly, is...black men commit so much crime anyway...how could one possibly tell the difference between what they do as a hate crime and what they do as business as usual? Black men victimize everyone, regardless of race. And if I'm black and thinking like this, I don't see why whites wouldn't think like this. In fact, I'm certain many do. And then, as I did with this Knoxville case, I remember all the crazy things white men do...and then I just get angry with men. You see, I see this case as an example of gender and crime in our society, not race and crime. Men commit crime, and it's getting out of control when two people can't even go on a date without something completely insane happening to them. Whites have tried to make this a racial discussion when I feel what we need to do is wake up and say enough of the violence, period. And we need to get real about who is making us feel unsafe in America. It's not just black men, and it's not always about race. But oftentimes, there is a gender trend to observe. One woman was mentioned in this crime, I believe, but crime is overwhelmingly male in America.
You say black-on-white violence is played down. Then why the hell was I unable to watch "The Young & the Restless" for about a year all because OJ Simpson allegedly murdered his white wife and one of her many white boy toys? And what about Kobe Bryant allegedly raping some white girl? And why weren't these considered hate crimes? You can say that these cases were covered ad nauseam because of the celebrity factor, but be honest--black men are on the news for committing crimes--any crime--daily, nightly and midday. And if it's a black male, they'll say it's a black male, show his picture and sometimes even give out his home address. When it's a white male, depending on where you live, the media won't do anything but report the crime and then move on to the next story. And when it's a black person who is the victim, no one really cares. When it's a white person who is the victim, everyone's talking the maximum sentence or the death penalty...which is exactly what's going on with this Knoxville case.
Let's go back to my point about clear racial motivation. Now, just because a black person has white friends and otherwise socializes with whites doesn't mean they aren't capable of a hate crime or don't hate white people. To be honest with you, every black person I know has expressed at some time or another that they don't like white people...and, yet, they interact with whites on a regular basis. And since I'm in law school, most of these blacks I'm talking about are blacks who grew up around whites, have white friends, know how to interact with whites without seeming "militant" or racist and so on...but many of them are militant and/or racist, more so than I am. My friend Nikki, who I've written about in this blog in regards to her obsessive attraction to white males, has several white friends and has expressed dislike towards whites on several occasions. I won't say all blacks do it, but a lot of blacks live with this dual feeling towards white people. I think there's a piece of nearly every black person that feels hatred towards whites, given history, our forced social status in society and just general ongoing racial discrimination/inequality...but many of us control it and live with it.
Basically, we can dislike, even hate, whites and deal with it because we have to. This is not our world. We can't hate groups of people and arrange to never have to deal with them like whites can. My feelings towards whites are very mutable, and I would guess the same is true for the majority of blacks. Sometimes, one white person can say/do something and reflect badly on all whites for me.
The article actually makes a point that I have made in this blog before, i.e. the majority of crimes are same-race. As far as blacks allegedly attacking whites more than whites attacking blacks, that doesn't surprise me. But I don't think that means what white people would like it to mean. As I mentioned, whites can arrange to be away from groups they hate. So if whites attack us, a lot of times they'd have to be looking for us. That's not as true for blacks--whites are often everywhere we go. And some of those stories will be lies, because some whites still lie about blacks harming them. And, as I said, black men do commit a lot of crime, so much of that crime will not be attributable to racial motives so much as the ordinary course of black-committed crime. And if it's a situation such as how the Knoxville case started out, i.e. carjacking, that makes sense, too--whites tend to have more resources and/or nicer resources, so of course blacks will attack them more than other blacks.
As far as coverage, if there's one thing I've noticed being from the South is, other than what kind of crime it is, where the crime (or other big news story) takes place tends to matter a lot in terms of whether or not it'll get covered. Almost nothing big that happens in Tennessee gets national coverage--not the consistently devastating weather Tennessee experiences seemingly at least once a year, not school shootings, and not "hate crimes." The TN/Arkansas area had a Columbine before the Columbine, and TN had a Virginia Tech before Virginia Tech...but I wonder if anyone from anywhere besides TN, Arkansas and maybe Mississippi know about it. Let something happen in Los Angeles or New York. I'm not saying every white-on-black crime in those areas would make the national news, but they'd have better odds of making it than one coming out of Knoxville, TN. Nobody gives a damn about Knoxville. Those blacks would have had to kill about 30 white people for a Knoxville crime to make the national news, i.e. the Virginia Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. TN just doesn't make the news.
Similarly, the media picks and chooses which gruesome white-on-white stories it wants to make a huge deal out of. Why Elizabeth Smart vs some other kidnapped or runaway kid? There are tons of them every year. Why Jon-Benet Ramsey? Why Laci and Scott Peterson? And why when these kinds of things involve blacks do we not hear about them every-damn-day on the news like we have with the three above-mentioned stories?
The desire of whites to blow this Knoxville thing up as a racial double standard while ignoring other issues and questions I've raised just goes to show how important race is in America, more so than any other identity.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Isaiah Is Out...
No, dammit...not out of the closet...out of "Grey's Anatomy." I bet white gays are either jumping for joy...or finding yet another thing to complain about in that it "took so long." "Employment issue" my @ss. Employers might not "allow" co-workers to call each other offensive names. Big whoop--it happens anyway. Just ask any woman or black person, especially in most "prestigious" jobs. It certainly happens in law firms, and that white male is still bringing his @ss to work every day getting better work assignments, more mentoring, higher salaries, promotions and just all-around being treated better than those women and blacks in the law firms that they degrade with offensive names. It's like white men get rewarded for being total dicks, but black people have got to get fired for it. But newsflash--that little workplace rule about offensive names, if it even exists, is unconstitutional. Either way, Washington's gone...and for what? It's not like what he said hurt the show's ratings or viewership, nor did it have anything really to do with the way he did his job.
And, no--if this were a white actor who had done something like this to a black castmate, I wouldn't be yelling for him to get fired. First off, that's not my style to go around demanding stuff, especially in situations that don't really involve me personally. Call me "nigger" or "faggot" directly, and it might be a different story. Other than that, with some exceptions, demanding that other people do something just because you're unsatisfied is a white thing, rooted in the sense of white entitlement. Second, it's like I said--I don't feel Isaiah Washington's actions really harmed the show nor affected his ability to do his work well.
So, at the most, he should be condemmed. Castmates who take Knight's side can be pissed at him, give him the cold shoulder--whatever they want to do. The producers of the show should have been sure to reprimand him for causing any tension and verbally/physically attacking co-workers on set. Gay people can stop watching the show and complain about him to the press or anywhere else. Hell, Patrick Dempsey could have pressed assault and battery charges, and he would have been right to do so and Washington might have gotten off the show that way. But I had nothing to say about Imus needing to get fired or not, and the same goes for Washington. I don't really care. I just feel that his work was good, and that's pretty much all that should matter. I do kind of hate to see another black face leave TV, especially a successful TV show. But he's out, so I'm not wasting anymore time on it.
And, no--if this were a white actor who had done something like this to a black castmate, I wouldn't be yelling for him to get fired. First off, that's not my style to go around demanding stuff, especially in situations that don't really involve me personally. Call me "nigger" or "faggot" directly, and it might be a different story. Other than that, with some exceptions, demanding that other people do something just because you're unsatisfied is a white thing, rooted in the sense of white entitlement. Second, it's like I said--I don't feel Isaiah Washington's actions really harmed the show nor affected his ability to do his work well.
So, at the most, he should be condemmed. Castmates who take Knight's side can be pissed at him, give him the cold shoulder--whatever they want to do. The producers of the show should have been sure to reprimand him for causing any tension and verbally/physically attacking co-workers on set. Gay people can stop watching the show and complain about him to the press or anywhere else. Hell, Patrick Dempsey could have pressed assault and battery charges, and he would have been right to do so and Washington might have gotten off the show that way. But I had nothing to say about Imus needing to get fired or not, and the same goes for Washington. I don't really care. I just feel that his work was good, and that's pretty much all that should matter. I do kind of hate to see another black face leave TV, especially a successful TV show. But he's out, so I'm not wasting anymore time on it.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Femmes Are...?
Yet another one of those times I wish I knew how to just accept comments on certain posts.
Okay, not only from my personal dealings with them but also just observations, the thoughts that follow are really meant more for discussion and knowledge than to be stereotypes. It's one of those questions I have about some aspect of the "gay community," one of those questions to which I am seeking answers. I'll admit that my latest altercation with a femme (LA Girl) has left me with rather hard feelings towards those kinds of lesbians as a whole, to the point of not being interested in anything romantic with them anymore. It's also not just because of her, though (I'm not going to blanket all femmes just based on one), but all the femmes I've known, as well as observations...as mentioned. So, it's not like these questions completely come from an objective box. But, again, they really aren't meant to be stereotypes. I would love to know what other queer women think of femme lesbians.
So, here it is:
Femme lesbians are Shallow? Self-centered? Heartless? Cruel? Difficult? Frivolous? Misunderstood? Airheads? Game-players? Alienated? Whores? Lesbians Until Graduation? All of the above? None of the above? Leaving anything out?
Personally, the word that comes to mind all the time when I think about them, especially lately, is "ridiculous." And, honestly, it's not even just feminine lesbians or maybe even not all feminine lesbians, but any feminine woman who acts like choosing an outfit or getting her hair just right is as essential as figuring out how to end AIDS or world hunger.
I'm thinking/writing about this right now because I watched this show called "The Secret Lives of Women" about lipstick lesbians--I believe it was on WE, so if you want to see it, see if it will come on again on that channel. A lot of the above words came to mind while watching that show. And there was this one woman who mainly seemed fake as hell and like some sort of Hollywood-star Pam Anderson/Anna Nicole Smith wannabe, and I think her and/or one of the other "lipstick lesbians" talked about how they never get hit on, how hard it is for femme lesbians when they go to lesbian bars because people assume they aren't really lesbians--they are "lesbians until graduation" or "bisexual" or just straight.
Frankly, if I were hanging out at a lesbian bar and saw my idea of a femme lesbian--the same idea men have of femme lesbians (think of the kind of women men imagine in their threesome fantasies)--I would just assume she was a bitch. My snubbing would have nothing to do with my doubts about her being a lesbian, even though I definitely find myself thinking "she's not a lesbian" when I see those kinds of women, even when they've said they are. "She's lying." "She's using her." Something like that. But, nope, not the problem for me.
My problem is my theory that 99% of pretty women are bitches. My sense of femme lesbians--even though I've never really been that close to that many, so I could definitely have the wrong sense--is they think that, because they defy the lesbian stereotype and are not masculine-looking, they are something special. They are the "hot"-in-the-mainstream-sense lesbians, in their minds, and the world should revolve around them and everyone should fall to their feet and worship because they have "the best of both worlds." Only the hottest women should step to them--which, I haven't at all figured out what "hot" means to femme lesbians (it's not my idea of hot, though), raising another good reason why I would pretty much never approach a femme lesbian--and if a man steps to them, they will pull their balls off and make out with a woman in front of them just to shove their lesbian-ness and "can't touch this" in a man's face. And what really kills me is a lot of them act like everyone is supposed to be as shallow as a lot of them seem to be about clothes, hair and other aspects of physical appearance, but they wouldn't like it at all if all women were like that!
I realize my basic theory that pretty women tend to be bitches sounds stereotypical and pretty mean. I know. I've just always had this theory, and I can count more women who have "confirmed" it--straight and lesbian--than women who have defied it (actually, I can only think of one woman who has defied it, hence the 99%). So, if a woman is pretty to me, I would feel a variety of emotions about approaching her, none of them good. I would feel nervous, judgmental, inferior. Add to that the perceived femme lesbian mentality of "I'm femme; therefore, I'm the shit." I would just expect to get completely annihilated by a femme lesbian in front of the whole bar, especially if she's a pretty femme lesbian.
And don't even talk about the possibility of a woman being pretty, nice and intelligent. I hate to sound like a man, but...I mean, that would just be a miracle. I, myself, am only intelligent. But men think women can't be pretty and intelligent. I think they can, but their being both will only swell their heads and make them even more bitchy, is my theory. It's like, "I'm pretty and intelligent, so I really can get away with treating people like shit!"
Okay, so I know this all sounds really bad. And, like I said, I really am just in a bad place when it comes to women. I have actually thought about just giving up and focusing on men. And then I remember that all men cheat, and then it's like...okay, back to being single forever...
By the way, I wish to add that just because I refer to femme lesbians as pretty doesn't mean other lesbians can't be good-looking. I just tend to attach different words that indicate good looks to other lesbians, such as "hot" or "cute" (which, "cute" can also be applied to some femme lesbians...and, certainly, not all femme lesbians are pretty).
Okay, not only from my personal dealings with them but also just observations, the thoughts that follow are really meant more for discussion and knowledge than to be stereotypes. It's one of those questions I have about some aspect of the "gay community," one of those questions to which I am seeking answers. I'll admit that my latest altercation with a femme (LA Girl) has left me with rather hard feelings towards those kinds of lesbians as a whole, to the point of not being interested in anything romantic with them anymore. It's also not just because of her, though (I'm not going to blanket all femmes just based on one), but all the femmes I've known, as well as observations...as mentioned. So, it's not like these questions completely come from an objective box. But, again, they really aren't meant to be stereotypes. I would love to know what other queer women think of femme lesbians.
So, here it is:
Femme lesbians are Shallow? Self-centered? Heartless? Cruel? Difficult? Frivolous? Misunderstood? Airheads? Game-players? Alienated? Whores? Lesbians Until Graduation? All of the above? None of the above? Leaving anything out?
Personally, the word that comes to mind all the time when I think about them, especially lately, is "ridiculous." And, honestly, it's not even just feminine lesbians or maybe even not all feminine lesbians, but any feminine woman who acts like choosing an outfit or getting her hair just right is as essential as figuring out how to end AIDS or world hunger.
I'm thinking/writing about this right now because I watched this show called "The Secret Lives of Women" about lipstick lesbians--I believe it was on WE, so if you want to see it, see if it will come on again on that channel. A lot of the above words came to mind while watching that show. And there was this one woman who mainly seemed fake as hell and like some sort of Hollywood-star Pam Anderson/Anna Nicole Smith wannabe, and I think her and/or one of the other "lipstick lesbians" talked about how they never get hit on, how hard it is for femme lesbians when they go to lesbian bars because people assume they aren't really lesbians--they are "lesbians until graduation" or "bisexual" or just straight.
Frankly, if I were hanging out at a lesbian bar and saw my idea of a femme lesbian--the same idea men have of femme lesbians (think of the kind of women men imagine in their threesome fantasies)--I would just assume she was a bitch. My snubbing would have nothing to do with my doubts about her being a lesbian, even though I definitely find myself thinking "she's not a lesbian" when I see those kinds of women, even when they've said they are. "She's lying." "She's using her." Something like that. But, nope, not the problem for me.
My problem is my theory that 99% of pretty women are bitches. My sense of femme lesbians--even though I've never really been that close to that many, so I could definitely have the wrong sense--is they think that, because they defy the lesbian stereotype and are not masculine-looking, they are something special. They are the "hot"-in-the-mainstream-sense lesbians, in their minds, and the world should revolve around them and everyone should fall to their feet and worship because they have "the best of both worlds." Only the hottest women should step to them--which, I haven't at all figured out what "hot" means to femme lesbians (it's not my idea of hot, though), raising another good reason why I would pretty much never approach a femme lesbian--and if a man steps to them, they will pull their balls off and make out with a woman in front of them just to shove their lesbian-ness and "can't touch this" in a man's face. And what really kills me is a lot of them act like everyone is supposed to be as shallow as a lot of them seem to be about clothes, hair and other aspects of physical appearance, but they wouldn't like it at all if all women were like that!
I realize my basic theory that pretty women tend to be bitches sounds stereotypical and pretty mean. I know. I've just always had this theory, and I can count more women who have "confirmed" it--straight and lesbian--than women who have defied it (actually, I can only think of one woman who has defied it, hence the 99%). So, if a woman is pretty to me, I would feel a variety of emotions about approaching her, none of them good. I would feel nervous, judgmental, inferior. Add to that the perceived femme lesbian mentality of "I'm femme; therefore, I'm the shit." I would just expect to get completely annihilated by a femme lesbian in front of the whole bar, especially if she's a pretty femme lesbian.
And don't even talk about the possibility of a woman being pretty, nice and intelligent. I hate to sound like a man, but...I mean, that would just be a miracle. I, myself, am only intelligent. But men think women can't be pretty and intelligent. I think they can, but their being both will only swell their heads and make them even more bitchy, is my theory. It's like, "I'm pretty and intelligent, so I really can get away with treating people like shit!"
Okay, so I know this all sounds really bad. And, like I said, I really am just in a bad place when it comes to women. I have actually thought about just giving up and focusing on men. And then I remember that all men cheat, and then it's like...okay, back to being single forever...
By the way, I wish to add that just because I refer to femme lesbians as pretty doesn't mean other lesbians can't be good-looking. I just tend to attach different words that indicate good looks to other lesbians, such as "hot" or "cute" (which, "cute" can also be applied to some femme lesbians...and, certainly, not all femme lesbians are pretty).
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Now I'm Convinced...
...I made a mistake. Last summer was nothing. It was easy. I did nothing law-related, really, and I liked it. Came into work on time (but still too early for me), left work early.
This summer is real. I knew that going in. For some reason, though, I just didn't get how monotonous working in the legal profession can be. I'd kinda heard it would be--vaguely remember it. But, dude...my job is boring...as...HELL. The only things that would make it worse are not liking the people I work with at all and the boring shit I have to do not being related to something that kind of interests me. All I do is research/read all day (which...I like to read, but...not all day every day). And whenever I actually get done with this research, I'm going to be writing about it. Then back to more research. And, for some reason, this is necessary for, like, seven hours a day, five days a week?
I would love to save the world, but I think I need to come up with a more non-traditional way to do it...because if this is how I'm supposed to spend almost every day for the rest of my life, I really can't handle it. Not that I had planned to practice law all that long anyway, just long enough for me to explain to my parents why I spent three years and tons of money in law school and then ditched law.
You know something else I've never realized before is how much time having a 9-5 job really takes out of your day. I totally feel like I am wasting life, especially with it being summer time and especially with my being in such a cool city. You finally get home from working all day, and a few hours later it's bed time because you have to get up so damn early to go right back to work. What the hell kind of way is that to live? I seriously can't imagine being this way for years and years and years.
I was at work, thinking, "Wow, you are just lazy." And then I was like, "No, this is just your continued path of an ADD-like existence." I think some people are just not meant for sit-behind-the-desk-all-day-staring-at-a-computer kind of jobs...and, apparently, I'm one of them. I thought I was cut out for such mundane tasks, and I probably was two or so years ago. But I've changed a lot since starting law school. Before, I had my own business and did work when I wanted to. Never had to get up early, pretty much never had to leave the house to do my work. I realized quite a while ago that one of the things I don't like about law school (or any school, but especially law school since I find the material less than fascinating) is it's too structured for me, and I can see that most jobs out there would be the same way.
I've really got to hand it to my parents now--I just don't see how they have done this for so long (getting up early, doing the same thing every day and, in my mother's case, going to a job that she doesn't really like daily). Now I understand why they come home and don't want to do anything else but watch TV, then go to bed. What scares me about the kind of work I'm going into, which differs from a lot of other people's jobs, is this stuff that bores the hell out of me puts a really important element of various people's lives in my hands.
I've accepted that I'm good at many things, but law school is not one of them. So I've accepted that the majority of the people around me during the school year are way ahead of me, enjoying themselves a lot more, etc. It turns out that was good practice for this summer. See, I had found out a couple weeks ago that the other law student I'm working with this summer attends a higher-ranked law school than I do. Immediately, I totally called what this summer was going to be like, and if you knew anything about law schools and knew what school she attended you'd understand why I immediately was thinking this person would be seriously anal, totally on top of everything and just all-around wipe the floor with me this summer.
The bad thing about having just a few interns for the summer is it just cannot do anything other than become a competition, even if not between the two of us--which it's not because I knew what to expect from this person and that I couldn't stand up to that, and I honestly just don't care enough to go above and beyond what it is that I actually have to do. But this kid goes above and beyond--comes early, stays late, takes tons of notes. I realize she also is working with lawyers at our job who have more work to give and more things going on, but I know she'd do a better job than I would regardless. My law school is for intelligent kids who really don't give a f*ck. We're laidback...well, maybe half of us or so are. Her law school is for intelligent kids who...well, are just about every stereotype the average person has of really intelligent kids. They're the kind of people whom, whenever they do something, they give it all they've got. A lot of us at my school aren't; we just find the laziest way to get similar--but definitely not as good--quality of results.
So, you see why I knew there was no need in even trying to compete with her. I just think the lawyers there will notice/compare our performances. To me, they could have looked at the schools we attend and have guessed it. I am not really commenting on what attending a better school makes a person, i.e. smarter, a better employee, etc. I'm commenting on some correlations between personality type and school. Now, my law school really is almost just as reputable as this person's, but I think every legal employer would have a different image of what a student from my school would be like and what a student from this kid's school would be like. We're thought of as more well-rounded, I think. And because of that, there ain't no way in hell I'm sitting at work a minute longer than I'm required to, because I gots things to do! It might score the other person some more points, but it's just not worth it to me. I need my free time, which is why I'm about to wrap up this post.
Obviously, I'm in Chicago now (or obvious for those who have been reading and knew I was coming). I somehow managed to pick an apartment that is close to a "gay" area of Chicago. I saw so many gays this weekend (I could just tell, even when they weren't holding hands), and I found out there's at least one gay bar nearby. From what I've read, it doesn't seem very gay bar-ish, or at least not my idea of a gay bar. It just seems like a cool place to go out and eat, i.e. more like a gay restaurant. Needless to say, I'd still feel more comfortable going if I had someone to go with. There are people everywhere here...no clue how to meet any of them.
But I did get hit on this weekend. By a guy. Why's it always guys who can barely speak English hitting on me? I wasn't interested, but it was kind of cool because it has been a long time since I've been hit on. But another cool thing about my neighborhood is it's diverse in every way, and that seems to be okay. It's not like it's diverse but people are clutching purses, throwing up for-sale signs, looking at you suspiciously, etc. It's allegedly also one of the safest neighborhoods in the city. This is where I need to live if I move out here, although I will have to sit through more comments like those made by my brother-in-law this past weekend about how "fruity boys" live out here and his talking about two men adopting a child or being in a real relationship like those are just made-up ideas people with too much time on their hands come up with rather than things some people could truly conceivably want.
This summer is real. I knew that going in. For some reason, though, I just didn't get how monotonous working in the legal profession can be. I'd kinda heard it would be--vaguely remember it. But, dude...my job is boring...as...HELL. The only things that would make it worse are not liking the people I work with at all and the boring shit I have to do not being related to something that kind of interests me. All I do is research/read all day (which...I like to read, but...not all day every day). And whenever I actually get done with this research, I'm going to be writing about it. Then back to more research. And, for some reason, this is necessary for, like, seven hours a day, five days a week?
I would love to save the world, but I think I need to come up with a more non-traditional way to do it...because if this is how I'm supposed to spend almost every day for the rest of my life, I really can't handle it. Not that I had planned to practice law all that long anyway, just long enough for me to explain to my parents why I spent three years and tons of money in law school and then ditched law.
You know something else I've never realized before is how much time having a 9-5 job really takes out of your day. I totally feel like I am wasting life, especially with it being summer time and especially with my being in such a cool city. You finally get home from working all day, and a few hours later it's bed time because you have to get up so damn early to go right back to work. What the hell kind of way is that to live? I seriously can't imagine being this way for years and years and years.
I was at work, thinking, "Wow, you are just lazy." And then I was like, "No, this is just your continued path of an ADD-like existence." I think some people are just not meant for sit-behind-the-desk-all-day-staring-at-a-computer kind of jobs...and, apparently, I'm one of them. I thought I was cut out for such mundane tasks, and I probably was two or so years ago. But I've changed a lot since starting law school. Before, I had my own business and did work when I wanted to. Never had to get up early, pretty much never had to leave the house to do my work. I realized quite a while ago that one of the things I don't like about law school (or any school, but especially law school since I find the material less than fascinating) is it's too structured for me, and I can see that most jobs out there would be the same way.
I've really got to hand it to my parents now--I just don't see how they have done this for so long (getting up early, doing the same thing every day and, in my mother's case, going to a job that she doesn't really like daily). Now I understand why they come home and don't want to do anything else but watch TV, then go to bed. What scares me about the kind of work I'm going into, which differs from a lot of other people's jobs, is this stuff that bores the hell out of me puts a really important element of various people's lives in my hands.
I've accepted that I'm good at many things, but law school is not one of them. So I've accepted that the majority of the people around me during the school year are way ahead of me, enjoying themselves a lot more, etc. It turns out that was good practice for this summer. See, I had found out a couple weeks ago that the other law student I'm working with this summer attends a higher-ranked law school than I do. Immediately, I totally called what this summer was going to be like, and if you knew anything about law schools and knew what school she attended you'd understand why I immediately was thinking this person would be seriously anal, totally on top of everything and just all-around wipe the floor with me this summer.
The bad thing about having just a few interns for the summer is it just cannot do anything other than become a competition, even if not between the two of us--which it's not because I knew what to expect from this person and that I couldn't stand up to that, and I honestly just don't care enough to go above and beyond what it is that I actually have to do. But this kid goes above and beyond--comes early, stays late, takes tons of notes. I realize she also is working with lawyers at our job who have more work to give and more things going on, but I know she'd do a better job than I would regardless. My law school is for intelligent kids who really don't give a f*ck. We're laidback...well, maybe half of us or so are. Her law school is for intelligent kids who...well, are just about every stereotype the average person has of really intelligent kids. They're the kind of people whom, whenever they do something, they give it all they've got. A lot of us at my school aren't; we just find the laziest way to get similar--but definitely not as good--quality of results.
So, you see why I knew there was no need in even trying to compete with her. I just think the lawyers there will notice/compare our performances. To me, they could have looked at the schools we attend and have guessed it. I am not really commenting on what attending a better school makes a person, i.e. smarter, a better employee, etc. I'm commenting on some correlations between personality type and school. Now, my law school really is almost just as reputable as this person's, but I think every legal employer would have a different image of what a student from my school would be like and what a student from this kid's school would be like. We're thought of as more well-rounded, I think. And because of that, there ain't no way in hell I'm sitting at work a minute longer than I'm required to, because I gots things to do! It might score the other person some more points, but it's just not worth it to me. I need my free time, which is why I'm about to wrap up this post.
Obviously, I'm in Chicago now (or obvious for those who have been reading and knew I was coming). I somehow managed to pick an apartment that is close to a "gay" area of Chicago. I saw so many gays this weekend (I could just tell, even when they weren't holding hands), and I found out there's at least one gay bar nearby. From what I've read, it doesn't seem very gay bar-ish, or at least not my idea of a gay bar. It just seems like a cool place to go out and eat, i.e. more like a gay restaurant. Needless to say, I'd still feel more comfortable going if I had someone to go with. There are people everywhere here...no clue how to meet any of them.
But I did get hit on this weekend. By a guy. Why's it always guys who can barely speak English hitting on me? I wasn't interested, but it was kind of cool because it has been a long time since I've been hit on. But another cool thing about my neighborhood is it's diverse in every way, and that seems to be okay. It's not like it's diverse but people are clutching purses, throwing up for-sale signs, looking at you suspiciously, etc. It's allegedly also one of the safest neighborhoods in the city. This is where I need to live if I move out here, although I will have to sit through more comments like those made by my brother-in-law this past weekend about how "fruity boys" live out here and his talking about two men adopting a child or being in a real relationship like those are just made-up ideas people with too much time on their hands come up with rather than things some people could truly conceivably want.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
