Well, while I am in the spotlight once again, instead of investing in drama, I would rather speak ideals.
I know it isn't really entertaining and most would probably find it annoying. I don't care.
I see a lot of different signs. Current issues.
I want to elaborate more on thoughts of sexual harassment.
My personal philosophy is simple: Nobody deserves it. No matter who they are, what class they are in, what they have done in their lifetime, how attractive they are as a person.
Ok, sometimes I want justice. The kind of justice that I want though is more of a resolute justice. Example: Ok Sarah, she bashed you for big hips. Yes, it is a free country of free speech, but your hips aren't relevant to a job you are pursuing. Your hips aren't going to get in the way of any of your skills. You are still capable of doing your job. Who cares what Sally says.
I simply want reasonableness. And when things get worse, I need more reasonableness and understanding. I need acknowledgement when I feel bombarded. I need the reasonableness where instead of me being labeled as the stupid one, that I have the favored understanding where I am capable, but getting hindered, blocked, prevented, dragged down. Where it is not my fault and that it is not something that is in my control.
Men in contrast go one of two routes:
1. Human nature. I hate to have to be an extreme feminist, but I think the world is having more of an extreme unbalance on the issue. Some men think they are entitled to any woman. They would feel no guilt if they took advantage of her when there was no mutual interest. They also would feel no guilt in abusing women who may be interested in them. For the women they are not into, they wouldn't care if they hurt her feelings because there was something about her that wasn't good enough. I'm sure some men have reasons of self defense every once in awhile, but I think men use their human nature as an excuse when there are different ways of rejecting a female. There is a such thing as self control when it comes to their pursuit or rejection of women. The rejected females should still have the same entitlement and right to call the shots when the man who rejected her may try to pursue her again.
I think it is wrong that just because he may have rejected her, that she is always vulnerable to his choices and shot calling.
2. Karma. Some men want revenge. Maybe some men have observed females as the ones who are verbally abusive or hateful and tormenting of other women. Maybe some men want to be the one to settle the score between the two women. I have seen it happen, but I think the odds in modern times is odds of less care and chivalry. I think when it comes to some women who are verbally abusive or tormenting, not all men have a set mind that at least has some organization. Some men are attracted to violence. It doesn't matter what the woman's point is, even if she may have a valid point. Some men like a rough, violent, domineering woman period.
Other men may be set on finding a woman who has a point and have no regard or care how she wants to get the goal of her point met. (The other danger is battle of power because two different people may have high values of different points that they have).
For the chivalrous men, or maybe not even chivalrous, they may be loving and appreciative of their women. When she experiences some kind of harassment or abuse, he may be wanting to do the official coupled move of protecting and defending her to say that it is his woman and not to mess with her.
I think most guys underestimate me and fail to see that I have complicated thoughts that go through my head.
The next idea is philosophy of power. This is another reason that I don't like being in a small town.
The smaller the town, the less amount of leaders. Because of this, there is a larger number of vulnerable people. Not all people rightly fall under leaders judgement. Not all people are clearly understood. When these people disagree, even if there is nothing wrong with them, they have odds of purposely getting set up for failure. The leaders naturally feel threatened by disagreement and so things stay the same in their way, they will find ways to conspire to beat down the challenge.
The vulnerable may not even be trying to take over. They simply may have a different value that may be in opposition to a leaders value. Because the leader disagrees, the vulnerable person feels their free will is being robbed and that the vulnerable person is shoved into a label or being forced into something they don't want or feel they deserve. The vulnerable person is not respected. They feel more victim to communism: being put into play of something they didn't choose or have control over. Its trying to make people have values or cares that they don't value or care but that is in accord with whatever leader it may be. It has to be seen the leaders way. Onesidedness and lack of regard for what other people think is not even of concern or question to the leader.
I don't think people should have to be so dependent on the leader to get what they want. If only the right match of people could find each other, they could share and value what they share and value together. Its the peace when the leader accepts that people are different and they go their own way. The leader doesn't force the person to change a value or care.
The change of racism is different. I disagree with any racism. People should change and be more tolerant of not only race, but personalities of other people. If people have a hard time accepting or getting along with a person, I think they should at least learn how to be civil and have some level of tolerance.
I also think its wrong to expect a person to be a Betty Page or tolerant when a person really is getting tormented and tortured. That is being unreasonable; I actually have had leaders expect me to be nice and loving of the people who torment and torture me rather than have self respect for myself. I say "hell no."
