.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Saturday, February 25, 2006

bad suze

For those of you who haven't figured it out yet:

This is a bad blog and I am a bad blogger. I am inconsistent, irrational, over-emotional and self absorbed. I rarely write anything factual. Mostly I write about how I feel. As such, don't take anything I say seriously.

Sometimes I feel bad because of what good people say. I said:
"I really ought to stop reading Sir Humphreys. Something regularly appears to make me feel like crap. I don't need that."

All of that is true. I am guilty of saying what I actually think/feel and not dressing it up all nice for people. What I didn't say is that how I feel is my responsibility. It is a core belief and mostly subconcious so I didn't even think to say it.

Then I said:
"It seems to me that lots of people think that if you are an unmarried and childless woman then you are abnormal, a second class citizen and destined to be sour, bitter and lonely."

Again it's all about my self absorbed perceptions. Yes, it may be an over-reaction, but it is how I felt when I wrote it.

Me again:
"It is depressing to think that maybe they are right."

They. The imaginary people in my head. A vague statement. I didn't mean they to equal "all Sir Humphrey people." It could be interpreted that way. Bad Suze. Anyway, I am saying "they" might be right. And I don't think I said anything offensive. I don't usually say anything definite enough to eb offensive.

"if people are allowed to be offended by the words "caregiver" and "partner" then I am allowed to be upset by this."

Others are allowed to feel offended about the words partner and caregiver and I am not allowed to feel offended by the same thing in reverse?

So other people think whatever I am offended by is silly...it doesn't matter. I am just documenting how I feel. And I am doing it in my own space. I am not telling anyone they are wrong or to stop saying things. I am even saying "they" might be right. I admit I am being over-emotional and irrational and silly!!!

Yes. I am noticing there might be cartoon parallels here but I am not going to say anything...

ps AL I think that if you have a multi-author blog you "might" have to accept that people are going to sometimes refer to you as a collective. Generalising is what people do. You can't control what other people think and say no matter how wrong you think they are. People are also inclined to be stupid and emotional. That is also what people do.

Anyway, isn't your being concerned about being lumped together kind of similar to me being offended by people generalising about the single, partner, married thing?

Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts. They are not necessarily right or good or rational or intelligent or interesting.

Maybe not necessarily, but I thought they were all of the above, Suze. Nice post.

Oops, sorry AL, I guess that could be construed as a 'suck up'. I'll say no more then. We wouldn't want to hurt your feelings anymore than we clearly already have done.
Well, as part of the autonomous collective, I agree that generalising is what people do. So is arguing against the generalisations when one is lumped into it. I've said before that (and I think I speak for all of Sir Humphrey's when I say this) that we all don't speak for each other. But that's not going to stop the inevitable generalisations (and I say that in general terms only, because there are exceptions).

I like reading your blog Suze precisely for the reasons you outline.

And Cheezy, what's with this "we wouldn't want to hurt your feelings" crap? We think that sounds like your feelings are hurt. We wonder why your feelings are hurt? Or is our assumption that your feelings are hurt as wrong as your assumption that our feelings are hurt?

And Suze, you said that AL (and presumably therefore ZenTiger) "might" have to accept that people are going to sometimes refer to us as a collective. That's an interesting point. Does one need to accept anything? Does acceptance mean we shouldn't try to change the world? Is recognition of something the same as acceptance, if one strives against it?

In talking of collectives, is resistance ultimately futile?
Collectives. Futile resistance. Ha! :)

On acceptance and generalisations:
I said "might" partly because I like to think anything is possible and acceptance is a personal thing. No one has to accept anything.

On the other hand, as much as I like to think that anything is possible some things are more possible than others. For example, I don't have to accept gravity and I could go around jumping off skyscrapers believing that I can fly. Why don't I do that?

I think that generalising is one of those things that is necessary for humans. It is what our brains do naturally. It is far easier to refer to "Moonbat Lefties" and "normal New Zealanders" and "the folks at Sir Humphreys" than it is to list the individuals in question.

And if I am anything, it is lazy. And sometimes, bad at is it, I am not talking about individuals but about my perception of the collective. And sometimes I just write throw away comments cause I am having a bad day.

I was also being provocative. I know the collective thing bugs AL. I know that Sir Humphreys authors are individuals with different beliefs and opinions. I know that people have a tendency to generalise when perhaps they shouldn't. I am not a complete idiot and am usually aware of the implications of what I say. Yet despite all this I wrote a post that could be interpreted as a stupid generalisation. Perhaps my point is that people aren't perfect and that you don't usually know the circumstances behind other people's words and actions, especially if you don't know them. And yes, I should take my own advice.
I'm guessing this post and the previous one is in response to either my post on demographics (and my comment of wanting more children), or the poll on how many children the readers of SH have.

There is an assumption by a couple of commenters on the other post (or maybe it's mainly David), that SH have somehow said something specifically to you personally to make you feel the way you do. If we have, I've missed it. That's not quite the way you wrote it though, so I was willing to not worry about it and move on. But, I've just gotten to the point where I need to say something.

I do not believe that every woman has to have children to feel complete. There is a biological imperative to do so, but that can be overridden by the will. What I do believe is that *IF* you do want them, it's ok to say that, it's ok to want them - it's normal. Whether or not it's possible right now is irrelevant; having a goal for the future is a reasonable way to express that desire.

And if you don't want them, if you know that they are not for you, that's ok too. Just don't wait too long in limbo land because the biological clock ticks and it's doesn't slow down for anyone. It will eventually run out.
Hi Suze. My only quibble with what you said was "And yes, I should take my own advice". Nah - your previous point that people aren't perfect applies to all of us, and allows you your time to rant, and my time to rant back.

I totally agree that we often don't understand the circumstances behind the other person's words and actions. People often react in confusing ways simply because there is usually a lot more going on underneath than shows on the surface. The abstract nature of the blogs hide much of this.

It's just a matter of cutting some slack from time to time too.

You do a great job of making people connect with their own feelings simply by showing yours, and that is a good thing. And it doesn't have to be perfect.
Cheezy, thanks!

Lucyna, I agree and good advice!

Zen, yeah...perfect would be boring and quite stressful.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?