you don't wear my chains;
I don't get the quarrel over stereotypes and labels. People generally don't want to be given a label, like say, a middle-classed guy does not want to be labelled as a middle-classed guy, so in retaliation against labels, starts acting higher-classed.
So isn't it weird to say that he is fighting labels when he is in fact just trying to 'upgrade' his label?
Of course there are those who are less pretentious and go like 'I do not like my label', which is a subtle nod towards agreeing that he should be given a label but not the current one that he is in. Normally people like this are people who are quite insecure about themselves because they think they don't stand out enough, so they have to act rock/punk/gangstah-rish as they feel that their current label does not give them the popularity they'd prefer to enjoy.
Understandable.
But if everyone tries to jump his label then what's so unique about the rock/punk/gangstah-rish people?
Why are people obsessed with labels in the first place? They claim that they aren't, but they are very much affected by how people view them, so they do drastic stuff to change their labels while always going around like 'Don't label me, I'm not a product'. Such hypocrisy. People want to stand out--by changing labels/brands.
Can't we all just simply shine in our own area? By changing your brand it's like saying you can't shine amongst people of your own brand so you're going to evolve and stay with people in your own brand just to shine, and I think that's quite retarded because you'd be fighting people who have yet to evolve.
Imagine a Charmeleon in the middle of Charmanders and you get the point.
Then there's always women who strive to do better than men. I don't understand feminists. They try to do better than men in the areas men supposedly excel in, like being violent, being dominating, etc. I kinda shiver when I see such people. They're just ultimately making a fool of themselves, and that says a lot coming from me.
I think this way because women are just trying to turn themselves into men, to prove that men are lesser than women. Doesn't this just show that the feminist in question is approving of the stereotype that women are weaker, because she is trying to show that she can do what men can? And by extension, she is saying that what women generally can do is lesser than what men can do because she can only prove that she is better than a man by showing that she can do better than a man in a man's job?
What she can show is that she can do a man's job, but she can't prove that women are better than men as human beings, and that's what feminists are always trying to prove. Yes I know that feminists are trying to push gender equality, but aren't they the ones who are always freaking out and trying to outdo their male counterparts to feel vindicated about some abstract cause of trying to be better than men? Point is, women are competitive, and they are more competitive than men are because they are uptight over their social status, and men are responsible for this.
But why bother proving as long as you know you're better/equal? Men would flip when you simply do your own stuff and not bother about what they have to say about you. By trying to compete with men, feminists are only proving themselves to be more competitive than the rest of the female population, and that they disapprove of the rest of the female population.
Feminists are such selfish people.
CHMA was quite fun. OK, not really. I didn't know most of the people there and not many of my batch mates went back. It was interesting to see the inclusion of females in the line-up of competitors though. I think there were female participants in year 2008, but they didn't get past the auditions. Neither did I of course, but still~
OK I've run out of things to say. I know how people prioritize things and I know I'm never going hit the top of the charts, but...
...I can live with it. We live only once, and I don't want to spend my life wallowing in self-pity.
-- 5/16/2010 10:53:00 PM
