I linked to this article "Women announced suicide on Facebook, no one helped" on my Facebook profile.
I got a very, very despicable answer.
A person on my profile replied "she sucks" on it, to which I responded "Excuse me?"
His response, after deleting his original post "she sucks" was:
"Yeah she's weak and doesn't know how to deal with her problems like an adult. That's some emo myspace shit."
Oh, that asshole. I read the post and responded on my mobile phone. That...asshole.
I responded with
"So you wrote "she sucks" as your initial response to the post, erased it, then comes back with saying she's weak? Because she committed suicide/attempted it at all, or because she wrote a suicide note online?
I think it's despicable others ...taunted her or made fun of her and didn't take her seriously. I think it's sad that her only friends who asked for her address were those who didn't live nearby and those who seemed to know didn't do anything. Someone saying they'll kill themselves is serious, especially if they seem specific about how and/or when.
There are people who threaten suicide or self-harm to emotionally manipulate people, I've met them or heard of them, but every instance should still be taken seriously. Even if only to show people that their statement is taken seriously, be they seriously suicidal or emotionally manipulative."
I linked to this article "Women announced suicide on Facebook, no one helped" on my Facebook profile.
It's atrocious in its content, not that it was badly written.
I feel so...angry and disgusted and repulsed. Cancer is real. Cancer is scary. Cancer can cause deaths, people. Stupid, insensitive, selfish moronic people who do these sorts of things makes me want to...to hurt them... A lot.
Husband: Wife faked cancer for gifts
( Excerpt, click the link to read the rest. )
I feel sickened now, so sickened...
Today I read shadesong's entry and followed her link to bookshop's entry "Bad Romance (or, YA & Rape Culture). I had Hush, Hush on my to-read list because the cover was beautiful and the synopsis on Goodreads.com didn't seem that bad, but reading that entry made me want to kick the book across a muddy field. (I still can't say I want to burn it. I don't know if I've yet reach a point of horror and hatred that I would say I want to burn a book.) That books sound like all the bad, anti-feminist parts of Twilight gone hay-wire. As one commentor said (I think), Twilight idealizes stalking = love, whereas Nora, the main female character in Hush, Hush knows that Patch's stalking is wrong and makes her uncomfortable. Apparently she tries repeatedly to get the bio teacher to change their seating arrangement, but he won't do it, scoffing at her statements she feels uncomfortable (I want to kill him), and she tells Patch, too, but he still pursues her. To the point that somewhere expelicitly in the book she wonders if he's going to rape her. WTF? This has a happy ending, apparently. They fall in love or whatever. Why is this a best seller about teenage love instead of a best-seller about "WHAT LOVE ISN'T" or "WHAT LOVE SHOULDN'T BE"???
But yes, I extremely dislike books where stalking and ignoring someone's request to back off is okay, it's romantic, it's tough-guy. The sought-after person will soon realize you're soulmates and meant for each other. I hate it more when it seems to "work" and the girl (usually it's the girl) falls for the guy in the end. I also hate it when movies have that kind of plotline. I don't care if it's a "cool, suave" guy going after a "bookish" girl, or a "socially awkward boy" going after a "really popular and hot girl" or gender roles reversed with the girl hunting the guy (though I can't really recall that many off the top of my head. I know "John Tucker Must Die" was more about revenge against a guy who played them all...). It doesn't matter if I'm suppose to root for the socially awkward person to win the popular person and show them that "hey, you're really shallow for thinking I'm not worth your time because I'm lower on the social status ladder than you. I'm a person, too, and I'm deep and quirky and treat you better than the shallow significant others [of the same social strata] you've been with." No... If someone tells you they are not interested in you, or shows it very, very obviously, or does not put forth any effort in talking to you, (rather than you cornering them and making them awkwardly talk back to you because you won't freaking let them be quiet), you should respect that. You should not make things awkward and embarrassing for the both of you for continually pursuing said person and coming up with antics that enroach on their personal space and discomfort them. What happened to respect? Over the years those movies have really started to bug me. Romance =/= wearing down someone's resistance and having them capitulate to date you, even if you do have some good qualities.
bookshop's entry leads to another blog, Fugitivis's "Another post about rape." To basically copy the same sections bookshop thought relevant:
( Cut - social rules females are taught to follow )
She then talks about a scenario of being on a bus and having a guy giving you the eye and two various ways you could react to it - breaking the rules or obeying the rules. This really freaked me out because I remember the one time I was really uncomfortable on a bus to the public library because two guys kept talking at me (Event 3 on the day).
From that day, I wrote:
( Cut for longness )
A friend and I were talking about our scary run-ins yesterday. Next week is the start of Sexual Assault Awareness Week here, and there are self-defense classes being offered. I don't know if I can go, because of the time committments and projects I have already going on. But I had mentioned it to her and she commented that self-and-physical awareness was probably the biggest help in stranger run-ins (the kind we've had so far, as far as I know, at least). As for bad, inappropriate encounters with people we actually know and hang out with...I have no idea...
Reading that article made me so...incredibly...angry...
Taking away someone's choice like that, inflicting them, knowingly, with an incurable disease?? Because he wanted to be able to have sex with her, after she refused to?? It makes sense to me, good sense, to refuse to have sex with someone you know is HIV-positive. Something also to ponder: how he got infected but not his wife or kids. I don't know how long they were married, or how old the kids are.
I think 14 years in jail is too lenient a sentence.
This article seems, to me, to illustrate the obsession media and society has with females being thin or not gaining too much weight. It's sickening! Yes, perhaps one of the benefits of breast-feeding is possible weight loss, but if you do it for the sole reason of weight loss...I find it...somewhat deplorable. It seems like the feeding of the baby, the nutrition is then just a tool for the mother to get back to her pre-baby weight. To go back to a time when her body wasn't witness and responsible and a home to another being... When "mother" wasn't a role in her life (assuming it's the first child) or "expecting mother"...
My disclaimer, though, that I've never been pregnant or given birth so I can't say what I'd feel about my weight gain during pregnancy and after the birth. My mom tried to breast-feed me, as she did my two elder siblings, but I was allergic or reacted badly so I had to be formula-fed. I think I'd breast-feed my kid. I don't know if doctors would recommend mixing both (formula and breast-milk), but I think I'd like the idea of breast-feeding my baby and feeling that awe...
(P.S. Sorry for the weird formatting of the full text article. It's better to click on the link, since you see pictures, too, and comments.)
In a way that makes me glad that Beloit has only one public library and we've the inter-library loan.
Re-reading this article I'm still horrified. An entire city, and a rather large city, without any libraries...
Philadelphia libraries to close Oct. 2
Pennsylvania's budget deadlock also means 3,000 city employees could get pink slips on Friday.
The City of Brotherly Love isn't showing much to book lovers.
All 54 of Philadelphia's libraries are scheduled to close because the state of Pennsylvania has not been able to pass a budget to fund the library system.
"All branch and regional library programs, including programs for children and teens, after school programs, computer classes, and programs for adults, will be cancelled," the Free Library posted in a notice on its Web site. All 250,000 books, disks and other items that have been borrowed are now due Oct. 1, and nothing can be borrowed after Sept. 30.
I'm a 35-year-old woman, and met a very handsome 43-year-old man named Daniel. We've been dating for five months now and still haven't slept together.
My problem is that in the beginning, Daniel asked me how many men I've slept with. Being a little scared of his reaction, I lied and told him seven. But after a few months, I could not live with the lie and finally decided to tell him the reason why I still haven't slept with him yet.
I told him I didn't want to make love because I was scared that he'd lose respect and eventually leave me like all the other men. At this point he asked me again, just how many men were there, to which I replied forty-three.
His reply was, "Hmm, one for each of my birthdays." And from that day on, I never heard from him again. I don't get it Curt, why is it that when men sleep around, they're studs , yet when women sleep around, they're sluts ? Why can't women have their fun too?
Stacy Jones, TX
I'll agree that she shouldn't have lied about how many partners she's had (or admitted she lied about it) or even shouldn't have answered and said it was none of his fucking business. It is unfortunate if women feel they have to lie about how many sexual partners they've had.
It is silly that they fudge the numbers if the reason is because they're afraid of being called sluts or thought of such. And being 35-years-old and having 43 sexual partners? So the fuck what? It may seem a lot, but if you average it out (assuming she lost her virginity around 17) it's not "promiscuous." (At least without knowing details.)
Excerpts from the article that pissed me off:
"An object that has value is worshipped, respected, cherished, and shared with very few deserving people. As soon as you start sharing that object with anyone and without care, the object starts to lose value. The more people use the object, the more it depreciates and the less bargaining power it has: this is a plain psychological fact of life." [...]
"There was a time when many women cherished their bodies much like a sacred temple. Where only a noble man, one who respected and loved her, had access to her body.
But over time, it seems that women have failed to realize the important role their sexuality plays in finding a long-term mate. Thanks to the women's movement, women are so busy trying to compete with men -- including in the sex department -- that they fail to realize the consequences of their actions.
Today, it seems that women are the ones who are collecting notches on their Prada belts by giving their bodies away too easily. But if women themselves don't value their bodies like they used to, why should men?" [...]
"Think about it for a moment: if men value a woman's purity so much, how do you think they feel when they receive the same gift offered to so many other men? Here's a better example: if I were to offer Stacy the same engagement ring that I once offered my ex-fiancée, would she appreciate it? I'm sure she wouldn't, and it's only a ring. Then how do you think men feel when a woman offers herself once she's already offered it to so many other men?" [...]
"A woman should give the man the test of time and make him wait at least three months before having full intercourse with him. If he can't wait that long, well her life just became a little less complicated because she knows that she's dealing with a man who is just using her for her body. In the end, she'll have peace of mind that she didn't waste her precious gift on a man who simply wanted to use her." [...]
"That's why today, we find a lot of women complaining that men no longer want to commit. This is false; men still want to commit, but women no longer have that special gift to bait men into a relationship."
Wow, love is a game where you bait the other person. And my sexuality is the only gift I can give a man!! WOW!
This isn't the totality of the article, obviously, and as someone who's angry, it's likely I picked quotes that skew things into my perspective of how chauvinistic, idiotic and insulting the article is. I'd recommend people read the article; maybe in my fury I missed something.