Social / Isolation Networks

Modern communication has advanced to a stage where communication doesn’t necessarily foster socializing.

Of course, communicating through the internet and (of course) through an iPhone or what-have-you is great. Very convenient. However, some tend to get the feeling that communication through such medias is enough.

For example:
“Maybe I’ll give Janet a call, so we can hang out on Saturday. Hmmm… On second thought, I chatted with her through Skype, Tweeted her, and saw her new photos on Facebook. Seems like I already know what’s going on in her life. Nevermind.”

Okay, maybe that doesn’t happen as often. But sometimes feel bizarre when I skype with friends. It’s like they are here, when in fact they are there. I can see their face on my computer screen, hear their voice, and feel their presence, but they are not physically next to me. Instead of physically meeting my friends at a Starbucks to talk, I can just stay in the comforts of my room, and still converse with them. No having to get out, no having to drive 15 minutes, no having to find a parking space and walk across the hot pavement of the parking lot under the sizzling sun.

Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Skype: helping us communicate or helping us isolate (ourselves)?

What about networks like FMyLife, GivesMeHope, MyLifeIsAverage, 6BillionSecrets, etc.? We are sharing our lives with total strangers we’ll never meet, or possibly those around us who visit the websites but will never know that it is us that they are reading about? These networks are changing the way that we are communicating with our loved ones, acquaintances, and complete strangers.

Is this a problem? I feel like something is unnatural. What are friens and family for if you start sharing your deepest and perhaps darkest secrets with strangers whos only connection to you is through a post you made on an internet network?

The internet isn’t a physical place; it is a virtual place we have created. Is it wrong for us to seek communication through such means? I wouldn’t call it a moral problem,no,  just a confusing problem for modern humanity.

Is convenience more important than sticking to our natural means of communication? Emitting sound waves with our voice box more humane than using waves of electricity and satellite signals?

To Tie the Knot or To Not Tie the Knot

Is it a gamble to marry?

With over 50% of the nation’s marriages ending in divorce, young couples are debating whether marriage is a good or catastrophic idea. If you think about it, marriage does seem like a trap.

Millions of pairs madly in love enter under a gazebo, and half of those pairs will… how would you say this?

Half of those pairs will exit with their hands trying to choke the other.

When couples pondering marriage first think about the rise of divorce rates around the world, their first reaction must be to think “We aren’t just any young couple rushing into marriage. This is me and insert name here.” Then, as you start to see your friends and family undergoing divorce, the reality hits you in the face like a bucket of cold water.

Which is why many young couples are deciding to undergo premarital counseling. Special counselors help couples address small issues before they have a chance to develop into bigger conflicts that may threaten their marriage later on.

I think that the rise in divorce rates are directly proportional to the rise of feminism. I guess in the 50′s and even the 70′s and 80′s women were expected to put up with a lot–housework, raising children, cooking, and defacing themselves for the greater good fo the family. However, we now know that self-defacement can only lead to a loss of self-esteem and annihilation of self-actualization. That a happy family does not make.

I doubt that contemporary women are put under pressure to NOT get a divorce. Especially when half the country is doing it. It is much easier for women to get jobs of their own (despite the economy) and to be accepted into society as divorcés than in any previous decade.

Statistically speaking, the chance of divorce rises with decreasing age (of the couple) as well as with each new marriage (2nd, 3rd, etc).

Seriously? This Is STILL Legal?

Today, as I was browsing online, I found a jaw-drop worthy piece of news.

My first reaction was thinking that the article was written 50 years a go. Second: Wait…dated August 4th. What? Third: Seriously? This is still legal?

Living in California, any of us who have been to elementary, middle, or high school know that paddling is illegal. In fact, not even paddling, just harming the tip of a child’s hair is considered a felony. Pain should NOT be used to discipline a child. They’ll end up with emotional and mental issues, and may go on to believe that violence is the answer. Anyone with half a brain can aver that that is not true.

Most states of the south and states bordering east of the west coast states allow paddling to take place.

I think the whole thing is barbaric. Paddling a child will only make him/her angry and frustrated. While it relieve the anger of the paddler, the child will harbor hostile feeling for authority figures and the school system that picks on helpless children. This isn’t only an issue for kids. If you were a parent, would you want some stranger laying hands on your child? Absolutely not.

Here are some statistics from CNN:

“The most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, states that 223,190 students nationwide were paddled at least once in the 2006-07 school year, including at least 41,972 students with disabilities.”

This is just outrageous. The students with disabilities face a more difficult situation than normal students without disabilities. Some short-tempered “teacher” probably got annoyed and decided to use a paddle instead of words and tact.

Just so you know, I have nothing against teachers–just people who call themselves “educators” and still use a paddle or ignore the needs of developing children.

The article also states that minority students are among those most likely to be paddled. Big surprise. Way to teach kids that you must conform or be hurt and embarrassed. Way to teach equality and acceptance by picking on the defenseless minority kid in the back of the classroom whose only problem was standing out.

Are we to resort to violence to deal with children?

This shouldn’t need an answer.

The Next Picasso or Flavor of the Month?

Kieron Williamson is just 8 years old. However, he has reached a height in the art world that some never attain in life. this child prodigy has been compared to Monet and Van Gogh for his landscape scenes as well as Picasso for his, well, prodigy.

This British boy paints landscapes and nature scenes in water color, pastel, and oil paint. His parents, stunned at his exponentially growing talent, stated that he started out drawing like any other child: struggling. However, he suddenly took an interest in art at age 5 (just 2 to 3 years a go) while on a family vacation. his mother believes that Kieron was inspired by the nature he saw around him because the family does not have any outdoor space outside their home.

Although dubbed mini-Monet, Kieron is facing a popularity that Monet never really lived to see. Perhaps the era of famished artists much too “ahead” of their time is over. Williamson reported earned 150,000 pounds from his latest show, selling 33 pieces for a total of $235,804. And, get this, all 33 works were sold under half an hour.

Although the art world is flocking, are people solely amazed at his young age and talent? Will he be old news once he is fully mature? Take a look at his paintings and judge for yourself.

I can’t seem to make an immediate connection, but the tranquility does speak to me. It’s like a catchy phrase where things just seem to fit together. Then again, I saw his paintings after seeing his name on CNN. But I can’t deny that in this specific piece, the low horizon line and clouds spread over the sky like butter does speak to me. It’s very quiet and demure without the sense of loneliness.

Whether I like the paintings or not, I’m still amazed at what a 5 year old boy has achieved with 3 years of inspiration.

My Soulmate(s?)

Most of the present world now adheres to monogamy. One man for every woman; one husband for every wife; one mommy and one daddy for every child.

Christopher Ryan, a psychologist, is claiming that mankind is just not designed for monogamy. According to him, humans have been polygamous (or rather promiscuous) for 95% of evolution. After the agricultural evolution, ideas of private property-a.k.a. “mine”-developed, leading to women being labeled as possessions.It was then that men and women stopped sharing partners, and settled down for one. (Let me remind the readers that this is all Ryan.)

I don’t like this idea at all. It does draw quite logical deductions from evolution and history as well as the objectifying of women, but it just isn’t how I want to view the sanctity and partnership of marriage.  I refuse to believe that monogamy is only held together by religious and societal pressures. Yes, religion and society does make “norms” and expect people to follow them. Yes, I’m past seeing marriage and monogamy as being the result of love. (After decades of marriage, people seem to be held together by routine and being used to being married to each other, not passion, romance, or love.)  However, I do view marriage as something that starts with love and compatibility, then continues with partnership.

Ryan’s theory seems to says that monogamy is an institution that imprisons women, but I refuse to accept that. How is one woman to one man more objectifying than three women to one man? Are man and woman not equal?  I’m not trying to be all feminist; I’m just saying that if anything, polygamy is more oppressive to women than monogamy.

From my point of view, monogamy is a necessary part of life. It is having someone to share a life with; having someone to grow old with. I wouldn’t give that up for anything.

References

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html?hpt=Mid

Look in the Mirror

Every girl can recall looking into a mirror, criticizing the parts of her face, and turning away with a frown. There are exceptions with occasional narcissists, but even lookers will remember a time when they first noticed small defects that they magnified in their minds.

It’s true that women tend to be more self-conscious about looks, and ergo, more prone to the phenomenon of the last 50 years: plastic surgery.

Moreover, there is another phenomenon at hand. I’ll tell with an example. Sally is a plain girl. She has a plain face, plain features, plain manners, and a plain-girl’s self-confidence. She goes to the movie one night with her friends and sees (let’s say) Nicole Kidman with her confidence and flawless nose. The next step? Takinga photo of Nicole Kidman to a local or near-by big city plastic surgeon. “I want her nose.”

Present day surgeons claim that they often get clients who walk in and ask for Jolie’s lips or Kidman’s nose. They often comply, but draw a line when a client shows up wanting to look EXACTLY like their facial role models.

When asked whether plastic surgery has helped to improve their self-confidence, many girls reply that they still feel ugly, but now, on the inside. On the contrary, some girls reply they feel powerful and beautiful. Plastic seems to linger skin deep for the most part.

It’s probably not a looks complex, but a deeper self-esteem issue: a vulnerable girl looks up to a big screen where another girl plays a beautiful protagonist. “Maybe if I look like her, I’ll have her confidence.”She is physically defacing herself and adopting a new persona. Homo sapien sapiens are shockingly prone to relying on their visual senses.

It is insecurity resulting from something within.

Don’t get me wrong, I think that every woman has the right to choose how her body looks. Some probably visit their plastic surgeon to fix up crow’s feet, or maybe just want a straighter nose. it is when a patient becomes addicted to surgery or wants to become someone else physically that there is an underlying problem.

What is Art to You?

Is it pretty? Is it symbolic? Is it pretty women with flawless skin?

Before you answer this, look at this painting by contemporary artist James Jean.

What is your reaction?

Here is my reaction, stream-of-consciousness style:

For me, I think of a nocturnal fantasy hunting party. The dogs look soft yet… raw… but somehow like cotton candy. I wonder what the girl’s face looks like. Who is this girl out in the wilderness at night anyway? Is the defacement of the most identity establishing body part, the face, intended to further the sense of mystery? Maybe it’s the black that communicates this mystery. Hmmm…

Back to a more organized style of writing, the painting is “Excavation” by James Jean.

Excavation is a search for truth–although we tend to think of old dinosaur bones and whatnot. Here this “search” of sorts is happening in a dream-like land where dogs look like cotton candy (although it’s just my opinion).

Everything is so gentle and graceful: the flowers in the girl’s hair, the way that her feet never touch the ground, the curvaceous brush stroke composition used to render the pink and rosy dogs.

The color palette of black, white, and pink add to the dream-like component of the painting especially because of the fuzzy illumination of (probably) moonlight sneaking past countless leaves of tall forest trees.

It makes me want to walk inside the painting and explore the scene, pet the dogs, examine the girl although the fact that I can’t see her face alarms me a bit.

I just realized that the way she is holding an object with her right hand resembles the Statue of Liberty. (I like discovering things suddenly, and it just hits you like lightning).

I also like that no one is wrong in critiquing art. How can an opinion be wrong? (Ex: I like blue equals inevitably correct.)

To me art is a place where anyone with interest and opinion can explore a different dimension than reality.