Nick's Journal
2002-12-27 04:15:33 (UTC)

The Future

It's hard to live in the present and we can't change the
past (and i know we all want to). so there's the future
and what we want. basically our present is our desire for
the future. look at waht we do? why do we do it? for
hopes of what we will get. education, job = money,
ambition. i think of hte movie american beauty. you know
what made that story sad at the beginning? because it
seemed he had no future. he was stuck in the endless loop
of life, constantly meandering through the meaningless,
mind-numbing, mandates of every day life. finally when he
broke out of it did he re-invent his present life into one
that basically dictated that he had no future. that he
could surprise. so what is a surprise? an uncertain
future occurence. when you continue to surprise yourself
by doing what you do during your mid-life crisi you end up
just creating such an ambiguity to your acts that your
future is unpredictable and thus it doesn't matter. so
you have two choices 1.) succumb to the the fact that your
present dictates your future and either hope to shape it
or allow it to become an infinite doppelganger of your
present, or 2.) create a present so arbitrary that your
future can never be predicted, thus making it unfeasible,
and in essence liveable.
i'm trying to figure out what i hate more. the
degradation of women or the senseless extollment of them.
this goes the same for all minorities (in a sociological
sense). on one side i have hooters, porn, and the price
is right, and on the other side i have this stupid shit
of "a woman just did something men usually do". i find
the latter really amusing. most feminists extoll the fact
that a woman did something that men usually do, or is
included in something that used to be all male. sure they
can say that it's reinventing the social hierachial scale
of merit, but what it's really saying is, "men are/have
been better, but check out this chick she's doing it to."
now the whole argument for this extollment is that NOW a
woman is FINALLY doing something men always did. well
what i'm really thinking about is the bowl game where the
woman played. it's obviously supposed to prove that women
can do it too. now i'm not sure if it's a social
imbalance that we divide our genders or whether it's a
matter of physical capacity, but most sports like
football/basketball are not co-ed for obvious reasons.
what are feminists trying to teach anyhow with these
examples? are they egging on girls to "be like men". is
the objective of feminism to level the playing field in
the area of men? why don't they try to excel in things
that dont' specifically deal with the barrier men impose?
i guess that last thing should be in quotes. it's the same
with minorities. it seems that most of their achievements
are viewed in terms of "equalization" (a la affirmative
really it's not a matter of you doing well, it's you doing
better than the others. now i know that america is the
pinnacle of competitiveness, but i think that's a
ridiculous and superfluous pressure exerted. it's just as
stupid and superficial as the sexist and racist tendencies
that spawn this mentality. once we realize that being
better than others can never measure up to being the best
you can be (be it what you will), the maybe we'll kinda
stop being dumbasses and realize we're all playing on the
same team instead of dividing ourselves.