I Am Pretentious, I Know

I have often abused the concept of xanga and online communities. And I still do. I abhor the idea of being constantly "plugged in" to a culture. You must withdraw, you must be a source, not a conduit.

But I, as a writer, must also write. I have set myself up as a serious philosopher, but I am less and more than that. I wondered why I wrote no verse, felt no passions, and no lines of brilliant wit bubbled up. And more seriously, when my emotions did surface, they surfaced violently and uncontrolled, at the expense of the one I love. Hmm, Jamie, could it be because you never give your feelings shape and vent? I shut off the valve, expecting what? The rushing waters to magically turn into philosophy and wisdom, rather than get putrid and then burst the dam, spilling all over my heart and those I love, leaving behind only disgusting dregs that I attempt to turn into something worth knowing or reading? What a fool I've been.

Thus, a journal. The originally identity of this place was such. Read the original entries, they were a journal of my life and emotions. They were no community, they were simply me. I will take that up again, excercise my writer's heart, letting the waters flow, letting the stream be clean, divining from it the poetry and the wisdom, letting it moisten and nurture my passions and talents, and allow the crops and seedlings of good writing to grow. There are two fields. This is one, that is the other. Read, don't read. I will try not to care. I encourage discussion, I will delete anything innane or unsubstatial.

Read Comment

Post Comment

I currently sit at The Double Shot Company at 18th and Boston, “nursing” (as John would say) a glass of iced, cold pressed coffee. Brian, the owner, is flirting with Jenna, the pretty, athletic sister of his friend’s girlfriend. They’ll make a cute couple. “Buffalo Soldier” is playing. That is the scene in which I sit.

Without further ado.

The Dreadlock Manifesto
or
How Most Men Are Scum And Women Refuse To Get the Tilex

I.

Contention one:
Men and women were created individually and distinctly. There was an intelligent design in their formation and they have different talents, virtues and obligations, being individually made. Example- Men were created to be of action while women were made to be creative. This distinction has been misinterpreted in Western culture. Contrast the idea of men and women’s spheres being public versus private, important versus trivial, foreign versus domestic, business and war versus crocheting and cooking, with the ideals of the Native Americans. The men hunted and the women farmed. The men went out, traveling in a dynamic lifestyle, killing with honed skills. The women nurtured the fields, growing and harvesting crops. There is no variation in equality, simply in means. It is a distinction between managing large/simple affairs and small, more detailed affairs. Visually, it is an arrow versus a circle. [This paragraph is largely a digression. All words prior to “example” are important, the rest are part of a larger discourse that is not really a part of this.]

Contention two:
Since men and women are created to fill certain roles, there is such a thing as a “good” man or woman. Just as there is a “good” son, expected to show respect and obedience, a “good” father, expected to show attentiveness and kindness, or a “good” Christian, whatever that is. But since there is a distinctive niche to fill, he or she that fills that niche most completely, would be judged a better man or woman than one that was lacking.

Contention three:
Just as a Christian would not like to be judged simply by the fact that they are a Christian, a man or woman does not want to have their character, worth and motivations determined solely by their gender. To have their woman/manhood judged is different from being judged by their man/womanhood. Just as Christians willingly (hopefully) submit to judgment on how good or bad a Christian they may be, they will not (hopefully) submit to people deciding who they are, simply because they are a Christian. Male or femaleness does not dictate anything about who someone is.

II.

Contention one:
Sex and sexiness are not included in the above points. Sex and sexiness are to be judged and enjoyed between a monogamous couple only. One’s should not look at another with an eye towards sexual attraction. Such thoughts should be confined to the woman or man you have chosen to enter into a monogamous relationship with.
Subpoint: this does not exclude the enjoyment of someone’s appearance. Something or someone may be aesthetically pleasing without being sexually attractive.

Contention two:
Women are constantly judged by their sex appeal, and more so than men. And women view themselves that way, attempting to increase the level of their sexual attractiveness in ways that have nothing to do with actual beauty or visual appeal and everything to do with accentuating the sexual parts of their appearance.
Subpoint:This judgment is in addition to the label “woman” which may determine the person to be physically weak, untalented in certain areas or of certain opinions.

Contention three:
Because of this burden on their appearance, women are judged not on a scale of good-bad, but sex-unsexy. Womanhood is judged in a perverse, sexual, visual context. A woman who does not participate in the rituals of spandex and eyeliner is judged negatively.

Contention four:
To return to the Christian analogy, this is as if one, assumed a Christian, was expected by those who met them to give monetary charity to everyone and to pray publicly at every turn. If they did not do these things, they would be judged a bad Christian.

III. (Conclusions)

ONE. Women ought to be judged first as human beings, both visually and in their characters. They should not be looked to as something “pretty”. A woman is not there for the male population’s enjoyment.

TWO. Male and female virtues should be paid attention to. They are sub-values to normal human values of justice, kindness, honesty etc, but they are still present and important. There is no battle of the sexes, but there is a diplomatic discourse.

THREE: Men do not simply need to avert their eyes when a woman walks by scantily clad, but need to alter their state of mind so that they do not even consider Women at large to be objects of sexual desire.

FOUR. Women must stop treating themselves as sexy. Appearances are for artistic purposes, if they matter at all. A woman’s body is not a billboard for sex, it is simply a carrier for her soul, which she may choose to decorate. But she must not allow herself to be subjugated to the scales of sexiness.

And thus, I have dreadlocks. I defy traditional conventions of feminine beauty. I will not have long, soft, flowing hair. I will not attempt to “shake my thing” for any man, not even John. I am NOT sexy. I personally choose to continue to shave, for my own convienence, not for beauty. I would like to move away from wearing make-up at all. But these restrains are difficult to shake off.

Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. . . She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. . . Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. . . Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.
-Proverbs 31

Read Comment

Post Comment

Really, It's Not So Hard

Current mood: warm and fuzzy in my tiny cave, watching the rain and the fog, exhilarated and comfortable, with a desire to run wild and nap at the same time
Current scent: Blue Jamican coffee beans worth $25, given as a gift from owner of The Double Shot Company, mixed with Pumpkin Spice lotion and dread wax
Current music: Rilo Kiley, “Take Offs and Landings”
Current location: propped up at the foot of my bed with a book on my lap and three at my side
Current thoughts: Is John changing his tire in the rain?
Currently reading: “The Federalist Papers” and Bauhaus: Crucible of Modernity

My room, my tiny little cave of a room. When I walk in, I smell a mixture of my pumpkin spice lotion and dread wax. The dread wax smells like the pomade I used to use, and it’s union with the lotion feels like a meeting of eras and it comforts me. I propped myself up against the foot of my bed so I could watch the coming rain. It started with a fog, I watched it downstairs while I ate lunch. As I sat there, sporadically reading “The Federalist Papers” as I hungrily and contentedly devoured the view of the roof of the cafeteria and the sky, I felt that I wanted to run wildly through the parking lots and streets, stomping puddles and splashing through the rain, and that I wanted to sit there drowsily, drifting off to sleep and waking and sleeping and waking to the rain. The solidly high quality music of Rilo Kiley, that affirming music, has been playing all day in this, my personal cube of space amongst homogonous college culture. I wish I could be reading the book on the Bauhaus I got from the library. I decide to make some coffee from the beans that the guy at Double Shot gave John. As I go to the window to boil the water, I think two things: if John was out of town or away from me, I would miss him less if the weather was like this the whole time and I hope he had the good sense to move his van into the garage so he could rotate the tires.