I don't like lies. And I most certainly don't like secrets. It makes me sad when people lie to me and it makes me mad when friends keep secrets for me. Especially when they say it's for my own good. But, truth be told, I can't complain. I do the exact same thing. I keep a couple of secrets from nearly everyone I know, and I lie nearly every day. Sometimes I hate myself for it, sometimes I make myself feel a bit better by telling myself that everyone does this. Most of the time the lies are tiny lies. Lies that make the day go on without too much hassle. Saying "good" when someone asks how are you. Or agreeing with someone just to avoid an argument. Sometimes the lies are a little bit bigger and that's when I worry about my soul. If I have one.
I wonder if everyone asks themselves once in a while whether they're bad people. I don't ask it of myself often, but once in a while the question pops up. What makes a bad person? Does a slip make a bad person? I don't know. I know I'm lazy. Some may say this doesn't make me a bad person but sometimes it comes close. One shouldn't be lazy when it comes to the people close to them. One should always make an effort to make them happy.
A teacher once told me there are three versions of each person: the person as they see themselves, the person as others see them, and the person as they are. The goal should be to make these three people as close to one another as possible.
I have no idea why this should be the goal. I mean, do I really want to be seen by others the way I see myself? Probably not. Do I want to be the person I think I am? Well, since my view of myself changes everyday, it would probably give me multiple personality disorder, so probably not. Sometimes I do wish I could know what others think of me. I can't really express why I want to know this, probably it would bother me, but I guess I believe that the truth will set me free. I mean, at least if I know what people really think of me I'll learn something about myself. And perhaps who my friends really are. If I have any.
In any case, for a few years now my "philosophy" in life has been out of High Fidelity. Rob says that Laura, his girlfriend, or his ex, or whatever exactly she is, would never make anyone pay for her bad moods. Or something like that, I'm definitely paraphrasing. I believe in this whole heartedly. Your problems are your own, and other people shouldn't have to deal with them. No one should pay because you've had a bad day. So if you have, try to slap a smile on your face if you're meeting some friends, or your family, or whatever. They don't deserve to have a bad day just because you have.
I'm not great at this. I make other people suffer for my bad days often enough. I try not to, but most of the time I can't help it. But I try. And so, I end up telling a few lies, and keeping a few secrets. So no, I don't want other people thinking that I am who I really am, or even thinking that I am who I think I am. I want, if at all possible, to make people around me a tiny bit happier. As far as I can, I wanna help them out with their problems. And as far as I can, I don't want to weigh them down with my own.
Sunday, 28 April 2013
Tuesday, 23 April 2013
23rd of April
Today is the 23rd of April. If I were back home I would probably be in Madrid, taking advantage of the fact that it's the celebration of the Battle of Villalar, the holiday of Castilla y León, and visiting the Madrid book fair. Since I'm not, I'm working, and trying to remember all the reasons I like this date.
First and foremost, I like it because for me it represents a holiday. A day I didn't have to go to school, and usually a day when my parents took me to one city or another to a book fair. Secondly, it was a day to do with books. I like book fairs. Specially second hand book fairs. They're a chance to discover new books, new authors and they give me an excuse to buy (or beg for) books.
Secondly, I like the day because of an anecdote, not really a coincidence, but almost. Shakespeare was possibly born on the 23rd of April of 1564 (he was baptised on the 26th) and he died on the 23rd of April 1616. Miguel Cervantes de Saavedra, author of Don Quixote, was buried on the 23rd of April 1616 too, even though he died on the 22nd. Coincidence, huh? Not really. The dates are from different calendars. During Shakespeare's life, England used the Julian calendar, and so he died on the 23rd of April. However, in Catholic Europe the calendar changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. According to the Gregorian calendar, Shakespeare would have died on the 3rd of May. But let's ignore this. I love to say that the two arguably most significant authors in my two most significant languages died on the same day.
Thirdly, and though I've never celebrated it, I like it because it's St George's Day. I love representations of St George and the Dragon. I love that roses are exchanged on this day (in Catalonia it is typical to give a rose and a book to loved ones on this date). I find it really literary and romantic (even though I'm not a big fan of roses).
Anyway, I guess I just wanted to say that I like this day. This year we've been granted good weather even here in London, I'm reading a good book, and the bad mood that had been haunting me this weekend is gone. So 23rd of April. A good day.
First and foremost, I like it because for me it represents a holiday. A day I didn't have to go to school, and usually a day when my parents took me to one city or another to a book fair. Secondly, it was a day to do with books. I like book fairs. Specially second hand book fairs. They're a chance to discover new books, new authors and they give me an excuse to buy (or beg for) books.
Secondly, I like the day because of an anecdote, not really a coincidence, but almost. Shakespeare was possibly born on the 23rd of April of 1564 (he was baptised on the 26th) and he died on the 23rd of April 1616. Miguel Cervantes de Saavedra, author of Don Quixote, was buried on the 23rd of April 1616 too, even though he died on the 22nd. Coincidence, huh? Not really. The dates are from different calendars. During Shakespeare's life, England used the Julian calendar, and so he died on the 23rd of April. However, in Catholic Europe the calendar changed to the Gregorian calendar in 1582. According to the Gregorian calendar, Shakespeare would have died on the 3rd of May. But let's ignore this. I love to say that the two arguably most significant authors in my two most significant languages died on the same day.
Thirdly, and though I've never celebrated it, I like it because it's St George's Day. I love representations of St George and the Dragon. I love that roses are exchanged on this day (in Catalonia it is typical to give a rose and a book to loved ones on this date). I find it really literary and romantic (even though I'm not a big fan of roses).
Anyway, I guess I just wanted to say that I like this day. This year we've been granted good weather even here in London, I'm reading a good book, and the bad mood that had been haunting me this weekend is gone. So 23rd of April. A good day.
Thursday, 18 April 2013
Naked
I like being naked. It's not so much that I don't like clothes (in fact I do, and once in a while I like going shopping) than the fact that I'm really comfy without them. If it isn't too cold in the house, I'd rather walk around naked, lounge in bed naked, watch TV naked... This doesn't mean that while I am in my house I am always naked. In fact, since I share a house, it would be quite rude of me to do it most of the time unless the people I share the house with were completely OK with it. But the fact is, I am comfortable being naked. However, I probably wouldn't go naked in public unless it was in an environment were nudity was the norm (e.g. a nudist beach). My attitude to nudity has to do with how I was raised and with my socialisation, all to do with the societies I was raised in.
A few days ago, there was an article in the Guardian about Femen's attitudes towards nudity. According to the article, Femen (a feminist organisation founded in Kiev in 2008) maintains that naked protest (mainly protesting topless) is the only 'valid' way to defend feminism. Femen, therefore, sees women in Muslim countries who follow rules about dress (voluntarily) as antifeminist, which, the author of the article argues, is a racist and colonialist way of feminism.
I'm not going to get into the topic of Islam and feminism, it is a highly controversial topic and I am not informed enough to discuss it. Suffice it to say that as a feminist, I think women should be free to act as they like, and if what a woman likes to do is to wear certain clothes, however much I may disagree with her, as long as she doesn't force me to do the same I have nothing but respect for her (though not necessarily for her choice. I might argue against or criticise her choice, in fact, but never alleging that she made her choice "because she doesn't know any better", which I believe is a paternalistic and condescending way to view things). However, I would like to get into the topic of feminism, nakedness and colonialism.
First let me start with colonialism. Broadly speaking, between the 10th and the 20th century, Europeans colonised other continents. They tried to impose their "civilised" way of life, their culture and their religion upon other human beings. This in itself leads to several problematics, the main one from my point of view being a relativistic sense of ethics (acts are good or bad relative to the culture an individual was brought up in), but one of the problematics it has led to has to do with women and their bodies.
In Europe, women's bodies are to be covered. One might say that this isn't as true in Europe as it is for some countries where Islam is the majoritarian religion, but enough that it is worthy of notice if a woman is breastfeeding in a public place, let alone if a woman decides to get completely naked in a public place. It can be argued that the same thing can be applied to men, and it would be absolutely true, except for two things: firstly, if a man decides to take his shirt off, especially in summer, no one will be shocked by it; whereas if a woman does the same thing a lot of people will be shocked and she will be considered not to be behaving appropriately, she might be insulted or attacked. Secondly, rape is more common against women, and it is often a defence rapers that women are "asking for it" because of how they were dressed (or underdressed).
When Europeans colonised a country, people in the country were asked/forced to conform to European culture. This includes "dress" culture. Women in countries where they usually wouldn't have worn clothes were asked to cover up, and women's body was slowly hidden and it became (as it is in Europe) "a mystery", something a man would only see if a woman chose to show it (or if he forced her to see it). It also means that in some regions, city women will wear "western" style clothes, whereas in smaller villages they might still traditionally not wear much at all. This creates a rift, a divide: whereas in a small village it is normal to be naked, and indeed, one might get laughed at if one covers up, in cities close by being naked is considered "improper" or "bad". This means that people being raised in geographically close locations, who may interact with each other during their lifetimes may have different reactions to nudity, which can lead to difficulties such as men believing, because a woman is wearing less clothes, that she is more available or more willing to have sexual intercourse with him.
All this makes me come to the conclusion that colonialism has done feminism few favours. It has reduced the number of people who view the exposed female body as a natural thing, hypersexualising it.
The human body can be a sexual object, a means to sexual pleasure, but it isn't all the time. I believe normalising nakedness would be a step towards people viewing a body as sexual or not depending on situation and consent, rather than on how much of it is showing.
A few days ago, there was an article in the Guardian about Femen's attitudes towards nudity. According to the article, Femen (a feminist organisation founded in Kiev in 2008) maintains that naked protest (mainly protesting topless) is the only 'valid' way to defend feminism. Femen, therefore, sees women in Muslim countries who follow rules about dress (voluntarily) as antifeminist, which, the author of the article argues, is a racist and colonialist way of feminism.
I'm not going to get into the topic of Islam and feminism, it is a highly controversial topic and I am not informed enough to discuss it. Suffice it to say that as a feminist, I think women should be free to act as they like, and if what a woman likes to do is to wear certain clothes, however much I may disagree with her, as long as she doesn't force me to do the same I have nothing but respect for her (though not necessarily for her choice. I might argue against or criticise her choice, in fact, but never alleging that she made her choice "because she doesn't know any better", which I believe is a paternalistic and condescending way to view things). However, I would like to get into the topic of feminism, nakedness and colonialism.
First let me start with colonialism. Broadly speaking, between the 10th and the 20th century, Europeans colonised other continents. They tried to impose their "civilised" way of life, their culture and their religion upon other human beings. This in itself leads to several problematics, the main one from my point of view being a relativistic sense of ethics (acts are good or bad relative to the culture an individual was brought up in), but one of the problematics it has led to has to do with women and their bodies.
In Europe, women's bodies are to be covered. One might say that this isn't as true in Europe as it is for some countries where Islam is the majoritarian religion, but enough that it is worthy of notice if a woman is breastfeeding in a public place, let alone if a woman decides to get completely naked in a public place. It can be argued that the same thing can be applied to men, and it would be absolutely true, except for two things: firstly, if a man decides to take his shirt off, especially in summer, no one will be shocked by it; whereas if a woman does the same thing a lot of people will be shocked and she will be considered not to be behaving appropriately, she might be insulted or attacked. Secondly, rape is more common against women, and it is often a defence rapers that women are "asking for it" because of how they were dressed (or underdressed).
When Europeans colonised a country, people in the country were asked/forced to conform to European culture. This includes "dress" culture. Women in countries where they usually wouldn't have worn clothes were asked to cover up, and women's body was slowly hidden and it became (as it is in Europe) "a mystery", something a man would only see if a woman chose to show it (or if he forced her to see it). It also means that in some regions, city women will wear "western" style clothes, whereas in smaller villages they might still traditionally not wear much at all. This creates a rift, a divide: whereas in a small village it is normal to be naked, and indeed, one might get laughed at if one covers up, in cities close by being naked is considered "improper" or "bad". This means that people being raised in geographically close locations, who may interact with each other during their lifetimes may have different reactions to nudity, which can lead to difficulties such as men believing, because a woman is wearing less clothes, that she is more available or more willing to have sexual intercourse with him.
All this makes me come to the conclusion that colonialism has done feminism few favours. It has reduced the number of people who view the exposed female body as a natural thing, hypersexualising it.
The human body can be a sexual object, a means to sexual pleasure, but it isn't all the time. I believe normalising nakedness would be a step towards people viewing a body as sexual or not depending on situation and consent, rather than on how much of it is showing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)