So this website is basically just a collection of cute animals, rants and fandoms, and beautiful naked women.

Realizing it’s been months since I’ve actually used this site like I used to is quite nice.

maybe i have misjudged someone-your post reminds me of said someone, a girl who went to EBHS.

Oh, I’m not entirely sure who you may be referring to but my post was directed toward a guy I knew

It’s pretty hurtful when a person you considered to be a friend for many years uses you, tells you to not tell anyone, lies to you, does the same to multiple people at the same time, denies all of it, threatens humiliation and still manages to earn the favor of so many people. That is the definition of a shitty person who doesn’t give a damn for anyone else. Fuck you man. So glad that when you came back I got the closure to ditch your pathetic ass behind.

WGS: Reading Response 5

“They want marriage to remain a privilege, a mark that they are special. Often they are willing to grant all (or nearly all) the benefits of marriage to gay people, as long as they don’t have to give up the word “marriage”,“ (Warner 82).

This quote about the reasons why some people still harbor homophobic views against same-sex marriages had a personal significance with me. When I was much younger and quite head-strong in my views, and very well fit the role of the good daughter in my family of Catholics, I have to admit that I too shared the sentiment that these people had. That marriage was between a man and a woman and everything else was desecrate. Over the years as I found myself straying from the by-the-book understandings, (and by book, I do mean the Bible and perhaps any other writings or preachings made for religious discourse) and opened my mind and accepted others and my own experiences and mindsets, I saw the error in my thinking at the time. The basis for my thought process that allowed me to think in that manner was the fact that it was taught so young that there are certain things that were considered correct and certain things that were considered sinful in the eyes of God. At my young age where I was still excelling in academics and the arts I thought my mind set at the time made me a shoe-in for heaven as well. And to get to heaven I thought you just had to follow the rules, as with everything else.

Whether or not a heaven does exist, the path to one’s personal heaven otherwise is messy and requires a lot of self-reflection. Perhaps what we lack when we are in that premature state of self confidence is that we still haven’t asked that many questions about our world. At that point, we would have settled for the standards granted to us by our starting environment. My parents, perhaps my father in particular, although a man who always means well and has pride in his ability to be resilient in his moral code, has the same mindset that is mentioned in the quote. He’s one of those people who say ‘let them [gays] do what they want, but marriage is a religious term’ and furthermore believe that the right of marriage should only occur between a man and woman because that is how it was ‘meant to be’ since they can actually biologically reproduce and populate. But marriage is hardly a religious term anymore and straight couples who are both atheist and infertile can get married in this world. This country is no more strengthened by solely religious beliefs, but rather use facts and figures, sensations and desires to fuel us to where we are today.


Warner, Michael. The Trouble With Normal. The Free Press, 1999. 81-143. Print.

WGS Reading Response 4

“obliviousness is not limited to transsexuals, cross-dressers, butches, and drag queens, all of whom are perceived not as doing a gender but rather as imitating a gender. It also impacts a lot of other people as well. For example, while my partner has a female-ish body, she tends toward Banana Republic menswear […] Her relationship with me doesn’t exactly qualify her as either a lesbian or a heterosexual. Romantically, she is comfortable as a butch or a femme, a top or a bottom, and all the things in between. We have no name for this kind of gender.“ (Wilchins 39)

When I came across this quote in chapter 4 of Riki Wilchin’s book, Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer, this really made an impact on me in comparison to the rest of the analysis she conducted on language and Jacques Derrida’s concepts about the sameness of language. Although the points she brought up were valid and eye-opening, her personal connection to the situation really drove the idea home. When she brings up her partner, it creates the image of an actual human being: someone who has their own preferences, who experiences different cravings and different moods on different days. For her, her gender identity isn’t really recognized, and when one doesn’t recognize someone like this, there becomes a disregard for an actual person’s preferences and personality quirks that make them who they are. Is it so odd that people can experiences preferences on both ends of the spectrum? Whether it have to deal with sexuality, personality, or any other type of ‘gendered’ quality a person can have? There are very many people who can feel head-strong and aggressive one day and be just as vulnerable and weak during another. People can have tendencies to go shopping and the desires to look their best while at the same time be cold and practical. These qualities don’t have to represent just one gendered section of the spectrum, they are all just characteristics that can be use to describe any person: A person we should all recognize as human.

Wilchins, Riki. Queer Theory, Gender Theory: An Instant Primer. Los Angeles: Alyson Books, 2004. 33-45. Print.

WGS Reading Response 3

“Sociological critiques, however, have over-emphasised differences. This postmodern, ‘post-structural’ love affair with difference, eclipses not only structural considerations, but situations that might be shared by different individuals.” (Freund 690)

            When I read this quote, it struck me that this ‘over-emphasis of differences’ is the overall obstacle that our society is facing right now. In class we went over how the labels and constructs in society are there because people felt the need to have an assigned name to certain categories of people’s characteristics in order to have a grasp on them and it makes me wonder about the overall need of a people to be able to name things. Why is it so difficult for us to accept that differences occur and are just phenomenon of chance? This is reminiscent of the Riki Wilchins piece that cited a lot of Jacques Derrida’s theories about needing to have a binary language in order to put a name to the categories that are actually relevant to the majority of society.  When we begin to put labels on certain categories of people, the amount of leeway between having a closed mind to an open one decreases. When we become less open-minded, the chances of taking into account the experiences of those different individuals become slimmer and what we would be dealing with is an unhappy portion of the population who may already be feeling outcast because of the normative standards that are set in society.

            It makes me surprised at society that the group of people who are already struggling with whatever limitations or impairments that they have is the ones who have to work to assimilate into the normal standards of movement, transportation, and general appearance of everyday normal living. Should it not be those who fit in this ‘normal’, healthy, category that should put in the hard work and effort to help accommodate those who need that extra help? Just as well it is so hard to say that it is only the group who fits in the ‘normal’ unblemished category that is healthy. Being the random recipient of a disease should not make a person any less of the full capacity of their being. Even with a disease or limitation, a person has a consciousness and they are still coherently experiencing and feeling the world around them. The perception of unhealthiness in someone who may not be able to function in the same way as everyone else becomes another obstacle in the joining of people and society in general. A stigma is formed against these people and what ensues is the potential loss of realizing their potential to input their perspectives on our world.  

Freund, Peter. “Bodies, Disability and Spaces: the social model and disabling spatial organisations.” Disability & Society. 16.5 (2001): 689-706. Print.

WGS: Reading Response 2

“the faculties of thought and imagination that make us human and make our relationships rich human relationships, rather than relationships of mere use and manipulation.“ (Nussbaum 6)

The article by Martha Nussbaum titled, Why Democracy Needs the Humanities, I feel not only explains why the government needs the humanities, but gives enough argument to explain why the public and people in general need to integrate humanities in our personal lives. When Nussbaum critiques the values of capitalism and how the education system is being reduced to create mere profit-makers, I agree with the fact that this is how the education system is being prioritized. I was lucky enough to go to a high school that had great academic standing, but what I did notice was the fact that those who would be considered ‘smart’ were the ones who excelled in math and science but those who centralized their views on reading and perhaps in philosophy were seen as having knowledge in a worthless subject and were potentially ‘stoners’ who contemplated the universe off of a hit of marijuana. I don’t believe that’s a status that anyone should really assume off of anyone, but even so, having an interest in that field shouldn’t be a bad thing. It expands your minds, gives you more qualities that cannot be so easily replaced because it encapsulates your understanding of the world. I believe that Nussbaum was trying to say that in this society where we reduce our thinking capabilities to make a profit for others is a reduction of our self; and when we reduce our self, we reduce the essence that makes us who we are and that is our soul. Her interpretation of soul as “the faculties of thought and imagination that make us human and make our relationships rich human relationships, rather than relationships of mere use and manipulation,” is both a beautiful yet sharp interpretation of where we, our society, stand now (Nussbaum 6). We are in a drought of pure expression and emotion. We use each other for our own selfish needs. Overall to me, Nussbaum’s piece was reminiscent of Bertrand Russell’s The Value of Philosophy, which also argued the need for philosophy in our lives. He argued that we have to keep asking questions so that the pursuit for knowledge never ends and that our minds will be on an infinite expansion. Here, I believe Nussbaum asserts that we have to keep the humanities in our society so we don’t lose ourselves, our souls especially, in the cold bustle of profit.

Nussbaum, Martha. Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010. Print.

WGS: Reading Response 1

“Finkelstein argues (1980) that the concept of disability assumes a relationship between impairment and social structe, and Abberley (1987) argues that a social theory of disability must recognise, even emphasise the social origin of impairment. This standpoint, however, seems to possess only rhetorical value. It is based on a view of the social and the biological as binary opposites in the typical mould of Enlightenment thought. The problem with this dualistic position is that it requires the social model to embrace a disembodied view of disability and an asocial view of impairment.” (Hughes; Paterson 599).

The article discussing the experiences of the disabled by Kevin Paterson and Bill Hughes really opened up my eyes to the plight of the disabled and how conscious they feel. Already as a relatively ‘normal functioning’ human being, we are made conscious by the need to assimilate to certain clothing styles and social interactions but the fact that the disabled person’s experience of the world itself is being scrutinized really puts into perspective how much society critiques its inhabitants. The article’s focus on ‘sentience’ and the personal experience of each person makes me think about how we don’t all experience the world the same way. And just realizing it now makes me realize that we don’t always take into account other people’s feelings and experiences when carrying on with life in general. Already, I feel like the comment about having a “view of the social and the biological as binary opposites in the typical mold” exists in our society and that it does lead to an “disembodied view of disability and an asocial view of impairment” (Hughes; Paterson 599). I can attest to the fact that I personally don’t consider the experience of the disabled very often. In fact, it wasn’t really brought to my attention until I see it first-hand and in my face outside or when I sat down and watched a Japanese drama called 1 Litre of Tears from the perspective of a normal girl who gets diagnosed with an incurable brain disease, or when I had to read this article during class. My interpretation of the concept of ‘dysappearance’ is that the body of the impaired/disabled does the opposite of disappear when in social or interactive situations but they themselves, and their experience does disappear from the minds of the people around them who do not take into account what they are going through. Going along with that, when the authors note that the disabled are “stunned into its own recognition by its presence-as-alien-being-in-the-world” I understand it as it is actually opposing their reality and experience of the world. When we single them out, we are denying the fact that their experience is valid and this probably causes an inability for them to move on or be satisfied with themselves are they are. I realize now that ostracizing them is a denial of their consciousness’ existence.

Paterson, Kevin, and Bill Hughes. “Disability Studies and Phenomenology: the carnal politics of everyday life.” Disability & Society. 14.5 (1999): 597-610. Print.

Maybe I should re-evaluate some decisions especially when under the influence and in public with strangers oh my godd