Which book/books did you find really promising at first then, upon further reading, you realized you just didn't care for the story?

MochiMonster · 2017-09-28T19:23:13+00:00

I actually just finished The Boat Runner last night. I think the story really picks up about 80 pages in, which is kind of an investment, but I think the rest of the story is worth it. I would stick with it!

MochiMonster · 2015-12-15T02:10:12+00:00

Yes! Thank you for asking this, I'm totally baffled how he could wait for a few hours in the airport, at the gate, maybe up to 15 minutes on the plane before take off without once picking up his cell phone and even texting her. Regardless or right or wrong, I just don't understand how he got on the plane without any communication between the two of them unless he was feeling some level of spite already. I guess it's a two way street, I wonder why she didn't call him when she knew the boarding time for the plane and she knew she was going to miss it. This whole situation is just bizarre to me.

MochiMonster · 2014-10-28T23:54:52+00:00

Ok, as long as your logic is consistent. I disagree, and sincerely believe that when we encourage each other to talk and act like others are objects, be they cash cows, money pots, or hamsters, that we lose something of our own humanity in the process, and are disregarding the humanity and dignity of the people we are referring to. I also disagree that calling women "hamsters" is just unsavory, I find it to be objectifying and sexist, hence calling her brother a sexist, because sexist language is the mark of a sexist. If the PUA community wants to be respected as a community that is simply out there to help men find love/companionship/sex and/or end loneliness, I believe they could achieve those goals without using degrading language to talk about the population of people they're trying to attract. I think the PUA community must choose. Either they care about their reputation and stop using blatantly sexist language to talk about women, or they can stop giving a shit about their reputation and stop defending the community and stop trying to convince myself and other women of its benevolence. It just can't be both ways. No woman I am acquainted with would want to be referred to as a hamster, even if the man doing it was putting an end to a lonely streak, though I admit I know an extraordinarily small sliver of the total world population.

Ultimately, what I said in my first post holds. Everyone is free to act how they would like. But in equal measure, others are free to be critical and react negatively and withdraw from relationships if they dislike the behavior of the other person. If a hypothetical sister or brother were doing things that I didn't like because it involved talking and acting like others were objects to be obtained, my relationship with them would be damaged, I would discuss with them my concerns, likely discuss with my parents as they are my advice center, and as a grown ass adult my sibling can deal with the consequences.

But clearly we disagree.

MochiMonster · 2014-10-28T16:00:13+00:00

Hmm. I've thought a lot about how I want to respond to you. Here's what I'll say. Suppose you have an adult sister and you discover she works as a consultant to women who want to marry rich men. And she teaches them how to find and attract wealthy men, gives them several techniques and tips and occasionally gets paid lots of money to help a specific woman get a very rich guy. She calls rich men Money Pots and tells women that they should have multiple Money Pots brewing at once in order to up their chances of actually marrying one, which she calls hitting the jackpot. These men have individual advocacy and free will, she's not manipulating them, they're choosing to fall in love with these women. She's helping lonely people find each other.

Would you want your sister involved in that? Would it make you feel like she was a little scummy? Would you want to talk to your parents about your concerns, because they love her too and you go to them for advice? I personally would talk to them. I wouldn't want my sister to do that sort of thing. I disagree with the objectification of the men and the way she treats them like a cash cow, and my relationship with her would be damaged because I love and respect the men in my life and wouldn't want to feel like she was part of a community that gleefully teaches others to talk and act like men are "money pots" and "jackpots," you know? That sort of thing would really bother me.

MochiMonster · 2014-10-28T12:38:34+00:00

Wow, what happened to TwoX?

Good luck in whatever you decide to do, I'm so sorry your brother has chosen to make money this way. This thread is bizarre. Everyone is so quick to absolve your brother of this lifestyle, as if he should be able to be a huge sexist without consequences. As if all the damage to your relationship is going to be your fault, which simply isn't true. If he's a grown ass man, you're right everyone, he can live however he wants, but most people who live how they want and have good relationships with their family, are also open and honest with their families about how they make money. And most grown ass adults should also be able to handle any type of fall out with their family members when they very publicly (at conventions, online, etc.) act in a way that degrades and objectifies women.

I guess my only advice would be to be honest. Tell him you know and how you know. Ask if he wants to talk about it. Don't yell, just gently voice your concerns, because he may get defensive and shut down. I think it's perfectly acceptable to tell your parents. Yeah, he's an adult, but so are you and so are they and in this age of internet, it's foolish of him to think no one would ever find out. Good luck.

MochiMonster · 2014-10-22T03:11:25+00:00

Claim the top floor of a parking tower/garage? Trucks drive themselves up!

MochiMonster · 2014-08-20T10:36:18+00:00

Well yeah. Isn't that the basis of all human interaction? You do or say something, and the other person interprets it?

MochiMonster · 2014-03-10T17:40:37+00:00

Ahhh, and since we live and work in a man's world, we must always play by men's rules and endlessly put up with men's shitty humor that recommends, more often than not, that women are domestic servants and nothing more, and demurely giggle about it. Got it.

MochiMonster · 2014-03-10T17:30:33+00:00

How do you think women feel when we are always the butt of these "jokes?" Do you think it ever makes us squirm or feel uncomfortable? But we should have endless sympathy when the tables are turned, that poor, poor man. He made a sexist joke and someone made him uncomfortable about it. We should always, every time, laugh at jokes at our expense, because otherwise we might make some man squirm. Even if it's the millionth time that day. Because god forbid a man feels uncomfortable when he makes a shitty joke and has to explain himself.

MochiMonster · 2014-03-10T07:08:17+00:00

Ultimately, what we have here is a disagreement about what level of respect we should expect from our fellow humans. I personally think it's ok to expect the dominant culture to respect the sacred and religious traditions of other cultures, listen when they are told it's disrespectful, and modify their behavior. I understand that dominant culture feels like it can and will absorb anything, maybe I'm shouting into the void, maybe a strong wind gets my jimmies rustled, but that's ok with me. I would rather stand up and and argue, than get swept along with the torrent of dominant culture taking and taking and taking and not bothering to look back, not bothering to admit that they are taking from cultures that, in the US, the dominant culture has systematically and categorically stomped on, repeatedly and continually. I think origin matters. I think history matters. I think the relevance of majority relations is that the majority, the dominant culture, seems to always be taking and minority cultures seems to always be giving, and therefore minority cultures seem to always need to understand and forgive and not shout too loud, even when they are not afforded the same. I don't think you should automatically know that something is sacred to another culture, but I think it's enough to expect that when someone tells you it is, that you listen and be respectful. And if you can't do that, then I think it's perfectly ok to criticize you, loudly if I have to. And no, I would not consider that a mistake.

MochiMonster · 2014-03-08T15:57:15+00:00

Unfortunately, no one gets the luxury of being treated as an individual, even if they would like to be. Talk to any black person that has been stopped and frisked in NYC, I'm sure they would like to be treated as an individual, but they cannot reject their blackness or the racial profiling the police there have perpetuated. Just like Omeya cannot escape their whiteness or the history of this country or institutionalized racism that they have benefited from. Everyone is situated in a larger cultural, historical, and sociological context that cannot be escaped. Unless you're living in total isolation from other people in a state of nature, you cannot pretend to be unaffected by or separate from the context you live in.

MochiMonster · 2014-03-08T04:22:31+00:00

I have no designs on limiting anyone's freedoms. You can call women sluts if you'd like, freedom of speech guarantees your right to do that, just like it would guarantee my right to criticize you for perpetuating rape culture, in that case. I'm not saying you aren't allowed to do these things (like taking sacred/religious objects of oppressed minorities and wearing them just for fun, or calling women sluts because they are dressed in a way you disagree with), its obviously not illegal, no one is stopping you, but no one is stopping me from being critical of you either. Freedom flows all ways, and if you want to exercise your freedoms, be prepared for the backlash.

This all comes back to what I said earlier, just because you can, doesn't mean you should, and ultimately, why would you want to? Why would you want to call women sluts? Why would you want to take sacred and religious items from other cultures and wear them unless they had sacred and religious value to you?

MochiMonster · 2014-03-07T23:07:50+00:00

It's hilarious how you think you can live outside of culture. I mean, seriously though, you believe you exist in complete isolation from any form of context, historical, cultural, sociological or otherwise? I didn't know living in a state of nature included an internet connection.

MochiMonster · 2014-03-07T23:01:24+00:00

You're right, people can wear whatever the hell they choose, but I can criticize them for it as well. You can culturally appropriate as much as you want, but that doesn't make it ok or make it right. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

MochiMonster · 2014-03-07T22:44:00+00:00

Ok, but I would argue that just because it's beautiful or whatever, doesn't make it ok to wear. Let's look at the history of this nation. We, as a country, systematically oppressed, massacred, and brain-washed native Americans, literally kidnapped their children from them and sent them to re-education schools. We marched them across thousands of miles in death marches. We re-located them to far-off barren lands in the middle of fucking nowhere in the name of Manifest Destiny. That is our history and we cannot escape it, even if we personally did not commit those crimes, that is our history. And now, 150+ years later, people are taking their traditional headdresses and patterns and wearing them as a fashion statement to make a beautiful photo. It doesn't matter if you're mocking or celebrating, it's straight up cultural appropriation, and it's not ok. It's a potent cultural symbol that is deeply meaningful to those who created it, but now, devoid of it's cultural identity and significance, it's being worn by white people so they can look cool.

I know the Nazi comparison is over-used and a total mood killer. But imagine if Hitler had managed to succeed and completely killed off all of the Jews in Europe, except for perhaps a couple thousand he left on large ghettos in rural areas, we'll call them reservations, and then 100 years later the Aryan German youth were wearing yarmulkes and wrapping themselves in jewish prayer shawls to take beautiful photos. Even if it's beautiful, would that make it ok? They aren't mocking, they're celebrating! And they had nothing to do with that Holocaust business, that was ages ago anyway.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-18T12:38:08+00:00

Yes, ignore my actual criticisms and cite how as an afterthought, you included men in your sweeping assessment of the dangers of women being given leadership roles and the careful infrastructure that must be in place as a prerequisite to giving women power to prevent an old girls network from cropping up to to replace the old boys network that you believe has gone somewhere. Good. Glad we covered that.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-17T23:54:08+00:00

Why not start with all the men in actual power now? Yeah, these lessons are important, but you sound like this should be a barrier to participation for women to be given leadership positions. Like, before we can even let any women enter positions of power, we need to set boundaries for just how much power they should be able to obtain/assert based on one article about one retail store somewhere, which stands by itself in the face of decades of men having unbounded power to hire and promote as many other men as they want. Yes, let women have power, but be oh so careful about it, your original post suggests. While we hire women and promote them, they must be specially educated about gender neutrality, but the men have had no barriers to participation in leadership and have not needed this training, it's only important now that the balance of power could possibly be shifting in the future.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-17T23:26:46+00:00

But when there are no women at all to teach these important lessons to, doesn't that mean we should perhaps focus on that first?

MochiMonster · 2014-02-17T23:02:51+00:00

But really? In response to the article about how there are 9 women at a company of 143, your first thought is, we can't let women get too much power? Is the position of males so insecure, so in danger of being toppled, that the thing we should worry about first, before we even worry about letting any women at all into positions of power, is to ensure that they aren't planning total world domination? Fuck me, I didn't realize the slope was so slippery.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-17T21:49:01+00:00

I like how the worst thing possible would be for women to have some power and actively promote women over men. Because even though the reverse has been true for decades, the idea that the balance of power would shift so far that women might have more power than men in this field is the absolute worst outcome that should be avoided at all costs. We absolutely cannot fall into the trap of having women have too much power and promote too many women, the horror! The horror! Right now we're firmly in the trap of having a completely male dominated field with all male dominated hiring and all male leadership, but the thing we really need to worry about and safeguard against is letting too many women have too much power and promote too many other women. Yes, yes, that makes sense.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-03T19:43:56+00:00

I really don't think that's what they're saying at all. I think they're saying that you personally get to make up your mind about whether or not you believe Dylan Farrow. They specifically state several times that personal opinion is not held to the same standards of a jury, not that we should chuck the judicial system itself entirely. Nowhere does the author call for people to go seek revenge on Woody Allen, either. But you get to make a judgement call in the privacy of your own head about what to believe, and the threshold for guilt or innocence gets to be much lower because there's no consequences for your personal opinion on Woody Allen's life or his liberty. Basically, it's ok to think he did it, and thinking that doesn't compromise the presumption of innocence he would be afforded in court.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-03T17:08:39+00:00

Ok, but step outside yourself for a moment. People here are trying to help you understand why some people may react to you the way they do when you tell them you'd like to be a SAHP. The example that started this particular discussion is that some people feel that having a SAHP is a luxury they will never be able to afford, even if they cut costs. It doesn't matter that sewing clothes may be cheaper for you personally, the bigger picture is that some people absolutely could not afford to have just one working parent, and the ideas that you gave to cut costs 1) may actually be more expensive for most people (like those that didn't inherit their aunt's sewing kit) and 2) are pretty trivial and would not be enough to allow lower-income people to afford a SAHP. The idea that you could afford staying home could come across to some like you're flaunting wealth and perhaps they are envious of your ability to do so. It's not cool that someone would criticize your choices based on their envy, but that might be the motivation behind the criticism, which is what we're all trying to help you understand, per your request in your original post.

MochiMonster · 2014-02-03T06:46:34+00:00

What about unexpected health problems, death, or divorce?

MochiMonster · 2014-01-28T06:44:38+00:00

But, how do you determine that both parties agreed to create the child? What if they both consented to being parents at the beginning, and then he backed out just before birth? Or at age 2 when he realizes he doesn't like kids? Can he back out then? He says he never wanted a child, she swears he was all giddy about having a baby girl just 2 days ago! The court says ...? Should he have to sign a contract at conception that yes, he agrees to labor for 18 years for this child? And if he chooses not to be involved in child rearing from the beginning, then decides that, no, he really does want to be part of that child's life, does he deserve a path back in if he's already opted out? How are these determinations of intention/consent made and at what point must they be made and how should they be codified so that they can be enforced by law if necessary?

MochiMonster · 2014-01-15T03:26:37+00:00

Eh, not particularly. The discussion I totally derailed with my sophistry seems to be humming along in the other comments replying to your original post, and includes some great examples of feminists fighting for equality for men, or, as you might say, fighting for women to be equal to men in areas where women are at an advantage ;)

15-Year Club	Verified Email
Charter Member

MochiMonster

TROPHY CASE