I've had more rounds of caffiene than I should've, so pardon my unsophiscated tone. I been drankin' and I'm uncoordinated. My username is like, in full effect right now, because I'm mad.
Good lord, am I tired of the women in my circle lately. I'm getting closer to that head trauma called the grown folks world, so naturally, the adult subject of men often slips into the conversations between the females in my "crew," sometimes with a whole therapy session that I don't feel like being a part of. I don't really have the patience to connect with it all, since I've neither been in love nor entertained a serious relationship for a year or so (the latter by choice; yes, many of us just like to have fun like you boys and still come home to our own space afterwards).
However, one tone of the bunch that's seriously been bugging me is this holier-than-thou, "having a man = deducted points in the strong portrayal of a woman" when marriage or boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are mentioned.
Are you telling me that once I have a relationship or get married, I am no longer a strong person with an independent mind?
I don't have a sense of self
now? My individuality and 10+ years of existence are no longer there to you? You're asserting that for me
Lol, I couldn't be a feminist anymore
I'd be out the club
Because of my new status
instead of my capabilities
Wtf! You're telling me that I am no longer Jaz
, the person with her own name, voice, future, and power, but Mr. so and so's
wife, an already
sexist depiction of female and male relations that is still
going strong in societies like Japan's, so what are you really
entertaining? You are yielding
to sexism and saying exactly what it tells you: with a man, you are secondary
Stop that shit.
The fact that this is not true
is what you should be saying.
If you haven't known it yet, isolation and independence
are two completely different things. I don't know why women are associating having a relationship
or having a romantic interest ever in your life
with no longer being a strong and independent woman,
because as I said, that's already what sexism associates you with; what are you doing bandwagoning it and telling other women that?! You might as well be a "Civil Rights" PoC telling fellow PoC that they're n*ggers because ___ and ___!
Not only do you sound selfish and hypocritical as hell, but the fact that you think your independence and strength as a woman is either dictated or threatened by an outside force (a man) or lack of,
makes it sound way too much
like an inferiority complex.
You are saying an outside force
over our self-
image when independence
-image are about not being changed by outside
If we are outright shunning something because we say it "takes away" our strong character points, then we are saying we are afraid of being dominated
and someone else
has power over us;
that we see romance, men, and relationships as
things that control us,
that it's okay to
let yourself be ruled
(not complemented) by your isolation and see natural human relations as your own downfalls.
Do you not see how much you have in common with the women who claim it as a necessity? You are both extreme as all shit, while "men" and "their influence" are still in your mouth; you are not focusing on "self"
If this is about individuality and sense of self, then why are you basing its legitimacy around the presence of men aka other people?
If this is how you think, then you are either too young
or too inexperienced
to understand what being an "independent and strong grown woman
" is, and still have a lot
of spiritual ground to cover in your growth as a seasoned Star Child of this generation.
When people propose the idea that "___ *needs* a man," an imbalance is started -- from both ends
. Too many are suddenly divided down the margin by either one extreme
interpretation (romance = necessity) nor the other (romance = blockade).
Both are unhealthy, illogical, and imbalanced, manfiested out of two completely different fears
, because both parties are projecting their own short-comings
. Love is only a complementary addition; it is neither a necessity (need) or an obstruction of self
(harm). It doesn't define
but erratic thought forms can make that your reality.
Kaori-Chan93 > "Honestly, I'm a tired of this "I DON'T NEED A MAN" mentality because it's the other extreme of the "I NEED A MAN" mentality. What, can't a woman do whatever she wants without being punished by it? Some people need to understand that feminism is about women having control of her own agenda regardless of what she wants."
If you don't *want* to be in a relationship, then cool, I am THERE, but stop saying it negates a woman's "strength."
Being a naive dumbass destroys it, not simply indulging in one.
You best believe that my counterpart was my equal
, and our thrones had the same damn measurements; we collaborated
our power. I didn't give away
my power. I operate solely; he operates solely. We are our own people. Complete
people. I was an independent, strong young lady and he was an independent, strong comrade, both having our own shit, our own views, our own thoughts.
Having a counterpart is not meant to say they will conquer or take down your regime; stop thinking that he will and stop telling him that he symbolizes that, and definitely stop telling other women to see love in this image. That is completely out of line! It's no wonder so many chicks don't know what love is! STILL!
That generational trauma is not reserved for him (unless he's an asshole). A partner is meant to be a teammate; an ally
. Your team, family, and allies don't make you less of a strong person; they support your movement of rising up and let you spread your wings; all they have is your back.
A lot of "strong women" struggle with this; never educated on the halfway mark because of comments like the above. Practically stuck in some Anti-Hero Trope, it's a hurdle that many can not get over in their lives, because they are so afraid of being dominated, constantly feeling like they have to prove something and be hard-ass in order to be "powerful."
Ain't got shit to do with being powerful.
You have to let go and transform on the inside, and if you think external circumstances will still weaken it once that has happened, then you have not grown up or become a strong woman at all. You are stuck in stage 3.
We're still little girls until we overcome this maturely and know that nothing
can shake one's inner
powerhouse, and to be able to love another without losing love for yourself is an evolution many do not know how to arrive to if
it comes up their path; if you lose it, then you always were the woman who disappears into love -- the one you say you're not.
My God, this literally goes for everything
in life: Do not let oppression oppress you; you will become and thus are your own oppressor.
I believe only Eat. Pray. Love. really approached this subconscious paradox in many self-centered (I am meaning at peace with one's self) females.
Being a strong independent woman
is not a status quo, bumper-sticker, national anthem,
title with a gold star, or a lyric that says fuck men; it is an internal
oneness between yourself and the universe that no one can take away or split up
by being with you
, implement, or diminish unless you let them harm your spiritual center.
Your independence and strength is spiritual, not situational; you control it; you breathe it; you bleed it; you are molded by it through life experience. Not whether or not you have a man!
That's a facebook status and it should alter nothing but that!
If you "have a man" and are no longer a strong or independent mind, heart, and soul by default, then shoot, that's by the doing of your own faults, your own mental state and decline --- not the state of having a decent husband, so you need to look inside yourself for that one, babe. Do a psychological study on yourself and how you react, internalize, and perceive relationships; we share our energy with others in this world by simply existing no matter what, but what you put out and receive is dictated by you.
I mean isn't Beyonce married? Is the entire image that people love building around her not based on the strength of an independent woman? Even though I could argue about her "image" until the sun is blue; as far as I'm concerned she treats it like an "artistic" POV; too many contradicting messages.
So I'm sorry if you think singlehood or men-men-men-men
the deciding factors on your individuality, but you are giving "sexists" way
too much power by thinking like this, the same thing PoC in America still do
with master/slave projections. This is like Carlton
from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
being told he's not "a strong 'black' man,"
but a sell-out
because he dresses a particular way and pursues a certain avenue, or that your "African-American movement" points are taken away the moment you marry "The Slave Master."
I'm so tired of it, I can't. *downs coffee*
Told the woman I work with that (in a nicer way), but she just blew the hell up.
Argh, I just see her type of commentary everywhere these days, even for franchises that won't go away like Frozen (that movie is not about screw men feminism, wtf; Anna gets Kristoff and the Elsa character is especially not pushing some anti-men arc, but something completely different (mental illness; how the crap can a relationship happen if she's mentally unstable and has to be isolated? That was her blockade against everything in life! She only gets five seconds of being with people before the credits roll!) Hell, she was written to get married anyway before they decided they needed a good villian "twist" to go down in Disney history aka Hans. For Christ's sake, her creator ships her with Wreck-It-Ralph; the Frozen franchise is not stuffy about it!).
The Queen is bad-ass in that film; she is practically head and shoulders above the rest, even her own husband, who looked to her for guidance. Having a husband didn't compromise her independence and strength as a woman. He was like hell yeah, be you; I trust you with the reins because you are a strong, independent woman. All they did was collaborate on these two aspects about themselves and work as a power couple when need be before tending to separate things.Next someone will tell me Mulan isn't a strong and independent character (way more than that Elsa character ever was, because the latter honestly didn't do shite except slit her gown and look afraid for 98% of the movie) because she took --- god here it comes --- an interest in a dude. And saved him! Granted, the romance was whack, but still.
And Rapunzel from Tangled, wtf! She's no longer an independent, strong woman because she married the character Eugene, an equally independent character?
I wish a story in some random media could mend the gap between (the nauseating) "I give my heart to you"
and "I don't need love"
with, "If I love you, that doesn't mean I'm giving you my heart. Rather, I am making the choice to share it with you,"
only because it's a position few rarely assert and don't even know effing exists.
As Idina Menzel said in a Frozen interview in regards to her personal fear of not "letting go" in some area of her life: "When we're powerful and strong women we wrestle with the fact of letting that be and still being loved...I think I still struggle with that today."
And she's right. So like the Snow Queen, Let. It. Go.
If you are offended, then I am sorry, it was just aimed at this Madam's specific POV and I have been drankin.
Maybe I'm wrong, but screw it; that's "my" 'status quo.'
...Does anyone have extra coffee? I get the feeling this will be deleted tomorrow.