Valentine's Day is tomorrow. Once again, I don't care. You might call me a hypocrite because I am talking about it. That's true I guess and I am okay with that. With that being said, it's not about why people have to do things on Valentine's Day. I've talked about that in a previous post which you see here. I am not talking about myself being alone on Valentine's. I don't care about that. But as the title of this post says, it's about single people and Valentine's Day.
This post was sparked by my friend, Mark, one day. I've mentioned him before. We were talking about relationships and related topics as we do frequently. He mentioned about being single and Valentine's Day. It got me thinking that a lot of single people are obsessed with the fact they are alone or hate being alone on Valentine's Day. Why? Why is the need to be with someone on Valentine's Day such a big deal for some people? Do they think they are a loser for being a lone on Valentine's Day?
I've seen posts from people on social media in the past, when they were single or are still single, complaining about being single on Valentine's Day. I feel like telling them to "STFU." Sure it's their right to bitch and complain. It is not going to get you someone any quicker. But on the off chance you have someone for Valentine's Day, speaking about the chronically single and those who bitch about it, it's not going to make you happier. I wish I could say it would, but I can't. You're only temporarily happy because you managed to get a date for Valentine's Day.
Valentine's Day is not some cure for being chronically single, loneliness, being unhappy, etc.. You need to fix that stuff yourself. But the fact you're bothered to the point of obsessing over being alone on Valentine's Day proves you have other issues to work out than this particular day can't fix.
Why is being single any other time of the year not such a bad thing? Is it the fact you are not getting love and romance? Is it the fact you don't have someone showering you with gifts? That's all fine and well I guess. If that's the only reason you don't like being single on Valentine's Day, you do need to take a hard look at yourself and realize you can get all those things anytime of the year. There shouldn't be a sense of urgency because society has deemed you need to be with someone on that day and need to exchange gifts.
For myself I don't need gifts even though it's a nice gesture. I don't need love and romance because it's Valentine's Day. There are 364 other days for that to happen. Why is it so hard to treat Valentine's Day as another day if you are single? I've treated Valentine's as another day for long time. That won't change when I'm in a relationship.
Mark D. White Ph.D. wrote a piece on PsychologyToday.com in 2012 which confirms what I am thinking and writing about. You can read the article here. Basically, the gist of what he is saying is to use the fact you don't have anyone on Valentine's to re-evaluate and reassess how you would go about finding love. He also said you're not a failure for not being with someone on Valentine's Day.
Kristen Mark, Ph.D., M.P.H wrote an article on PsychologyToday.com and has another take. It's the opposite of wanting to be with someone on Valentine's Day. You can read the article here. She says single people shouldn't be pitied because they are single on Valentine's Day. Although, that might make things worse some people if they are. She goes on to say she conducted a study that showed that no matter the circumstances surrounding you being single, most of the people that participated in the study don't mind being alone on Valentine's Day.
Regardless, don't dwell on being single on Valentine's Day. You're not doing yourself any favours. Just doing you like and again treat it like any other day.
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Friday, February 02, 2018
"In All of Us Command" - The Revert of the Canadian National Anthem
Nearly eights ago, I talked about changing a line in the Canadian national anthem. You can see the post here. I was against the idea because I saw no point. As well I thought Stephen Harper was wasting taxpayers money studying the idea. According to some research, I mistakenly attributed it to Harper, but it was then Governor General Michaëlle Jean who announced a plan in her speech from the throne to have Parliament review the “original gender-neutral wording of the national anthem.”
While doing some research, I found out that the original French version has always remained gender neutral. It was written and released over 130 years ago in 1880 by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier and and composer Calixa Lavallée and originally entitled "Chant National." Even the versions by Thomas B. Richardson, Mercy E. Powell McCulloch; Wilfred Campbell, Augustus Bridle, and Ewing Buchan; Robert Stanley Weir, and the other versions written were all gender-neutral.
The version by Weir; a lawyer, recorder, and later a judge wrote his version in 1908. It was written to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Quebec City. In 1913, 1914, and 1916; changes were made to the song. Nobody knows why it was changed to a non-gender neutral version as there is no evidence. I came across an editorial published on National Post's website in 2016 and penned by Robert Cushman. You can see it here. Cushman breaks down the "in all thy sons command" line of the anthem. He theorizes that Weir made the revision to be with the times.
Thinking about it, why would you need to change it? Theories aside, was there a point to doing so? We'll never know as again, there is no evidence to why the change was made.
Even though Weir's version became the official anthem in 1980 as it was widely sung as the main anthem. After 1939, it became one of the two defacto anthems alongside "God Save the Queen." It was done so because it was sung in French Canada and the music was heard everywhere else that was English in Canada.
Why has it taken over 110 years to change it back? But why did it take at 35-40 years for discussion on the discriminatory aspects to start taking place? According to what I've researched, this discussion came about in the 1950s. Basically we've had this discussion for at least 60 years.
When Jean announced the review on March 3rd, the public sentiment, myself included, was strongly against changing it back, that two days later they dropped it. Ironically, my post was two days later. My ignorance attributed the proposed review to Harper. I usually try to be thorough and correct with my information. But even I have moments of slipping up. Looking back, I feel bad for her.
It has been said that things can change over time. It is true as I'm okay with the change. Reverting back to the original words is not such a bad thing. People have been trying for decades to get it changed back. Many politicians have tried to introduce similar bills in the past with no such luck. But with a lot of things, people complain. Senator Denise Batters is one of them. Here is her tweet with said complaining.
Why does there need to be any discussion? If you actually look at the original words of any versions including Weir's unrevised original version, you'd know it is gender-neutral. French Canada, Quebec specifically, is the butt of a lot jokes, but they got this right. Yes, I again admit I was against changing it the last time it was brought up. People can change their stance over time. That's exactly what I did. If you don't like that's it has been reverted back than too bad.
I get that it will take time to get used to as singing "in all thy sons command" is out of habit. But if Weir's version that became the official anthem in 1980 wasn't revised than we wouldn't have had at least 60 years of discussions. This post wouldn't exist. But the fact is it was.
If you are bitching about parliamentary procedure not happening. Get over it. If you're bitching about the fact it's been reverted. Get over it. Think about this. The gender-neutral versions were written during a time when laws were limiting for women. Revising Weir's gender-neutral version to be gender-specific could be seen as a step back. Reverting could be seen as the only way to continue to progress forward.
While doing some research, I found out that the original French version has always remained gender neutral. It was written and released over 130 years ago in 1880 by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier and and composer Calixa Lavallée and originally entitled "Chant National." Even the versions by Thomas B. Richardson, Mercy E. Powell McCulloch; Wilfred Campbell, Augustus Bridle, and Ewing Buchan; Robert Stanley Weir, and the other versions written were all gender-neutral.
The version by Weir; a lawyer, recorder, and later a judge wrote his version in 1908. It was written to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Quebec City. In 1913, 1914, and 1916; changes were made to the song. Nobody knows why it was changed to a non-gender neutral version as there is no evidence. I came across an editorial published on National Post's website in 2016 and penned by Robert Cushman. You can see it here. Cushman breaks down the "in all thy sons command" line of the anthem. He theorizes that Weir made the revision to be with the times.
Thinking about it, why would you need to change it? Theories aside, was there a point to doing so? We'll never know as again, there is no evidence to why the change was made.
Even though Weir's version became the official anthem in 1980 as it was widely sung as the main anthem. After 1939, it became one of the two defacto anthems alongside "God Save the Queen." It was done so because it was sung in French Canada and the music was heard everywhere else that was English in Canada.
Why has it taken over 110 years to change it back? But why did it take at 35-40 years for discussion on the discriminatory aspects to start taking place? According to what I've researched, this discussion came about in the 1950s. Basically we've had this discussion for at least 60 years.
When Jean announced the review on March 3rd, the public sentiment, myself included, was strongly against changing it back, that two days later they dropped it. Ironically, my post was two days later. My ignorance attributed the proposed review to Harper. I usually try to be thorough and correct with my information. But even I have moments of slipping up. Looking back, I feel bad for her.
It has been said that things can change over time. It is true as I'm okay with the change. Reverting back to the original words is not such a bad thing. People have been trying for decades to get it changed back. Many politicians have tried to introduce similar bills in the past with no such luck. But with a lot of things, people complain. Senator Denise Batters is one of them. Here is her tweet with said complaining.
Here is an awesome response to her that I couldn't have said better myself.Shameful, anti-democratic behaviour by #Trudeau-appointed senators, including #SenCA Speaker, as they shut down legitimate debate in Chamber— Sen. Denise Batters (@denisebatters) January 31, 2018
Dear Senator Batters; Our anthem has been through many changes over the years. This change takes us to a version that doesn't put men over women. A simple change. Objecting to legitimate procedures as anti-democratic when you yourself weren't elected is very funny.— Timothy Anderson (@AndersonBooz) February 1, 2018
Why does there need to be any discussion? If you actually look at the original words of any versions including Weir's unrevised original version, you'd know it is gender-neutral. French Canada, Quebec specifically, is the butt of a lot jokes, but they got this right. Yes, I again admit I was against changing it the last time it was brought up. People can change their stance over time. That's exactly what I did. If you don't like that's it has been reverted back than too bad.
I get that it will take time to get used to as singing "in all thy sons command" is out of habit. But if Weir's version that became the official anthem in 1980 wasn't revised than we wouldn't have had at least 60 years of discussions. This post wouldn't exist. But the fact is it was.
If you are bitching about parliamentary procedure not happening. Get over it. If you're bitching about the fact it's been reverted. Get over it. Think about this. The gender-neutral versions were written during a time when laws were limiting for women. Revising Weir's gender-neutral version to be gender-specific could be seen as a step back. Reverting could be seen as the only way to continue to progress forward.
Thursday, November 30, 2017
What We Take For Granted
For those that don't know, I work as a product advisor/sales doing demos at the new Costco in Saskatoon. I have a done a variety of products. Today I was legit excited because I did the Chicago mix popcorn. It's one product I have wanted to demo since I started in November.
As I was standing, waiting for people to come and sample/buy my product, I seen a elderly couple down my aisle. I happened to notice that they took a three pack of the canned corned beef. It's the classic can with the key on it. The key is used to open the can. I said to the couple that my mom used to buy that for my dad to make Reuben sandwiches with.
The gentleman stopped where I was setup and told me a story. He told that he was a child of The Depression. He grew up in the 30s. They didn't have the most money. He said this person in school would bring a can of whatever and the can had the key. They were able to afford that because they had more money. Those cans of corned beef with the key remind him of that.
It got me thinking that nowadays, a lot of us take things like that for granted. We buy stuff like that and not even think about it. It also showed me that we can be reminded of memories from items that others might think of as random. I didn't get this gentleman's name, but I really appreciate that he took the time to tell me that story.
We all take things for granted, but every now and then we are reminded not to when we are told stories like this. I always like hearing stories from years gone by. It was something my Uncle Jack, rest his soul, would always do. That was one of the highlights of my work day. I hope you had a experience in your day like that.
As I was standing, waiting for people to come and sample/buy my product, I seen a elderly couple down my aisle. I happened to notice that they took a three pack of the canned corned beef. It's the classic can with the key on it. The key is used to open the can. I said to the couple that my mom used to buy that for my dad to make Reuben sandwiches with.
The gentleman stopped where I was setup and told me a story. He told that he was a child of The Depression. He grew up in the 30s. They didn't have the most money. He said this person in school would bring a can of whatever and the can had the key. They were able to afford that because they had more money. Those cans of corned beef with the key remind him of that.
It got me thinking that nowadays, a lot of us take things like that for granted. We buy stuff like that and not even think about it. It also showed me that we can be reminded of memories from items that others might think of as random. I didn't get this gentleman's name, but I really appreciate that he took the time to tell me that story.
We all take things for granted, but every now and then we are reminded not to when we are told stories like this. I always like hearing stories from years gone by. It was something my Uncle Jack, rest his soul, would always do. That was one of the highlights of my work day. I hope you had a experience in your day like that.
Monday, November 27, 2017
Song of the Day #58 - Graffiti6
If you don't know who Graffiti6 is, they are a band from the United Kingdom. I first heard of them when I heard their song "Free" on CBC Radio 2 on my morning drives to work when I worked at a tire recycler.
This version of "Over You" is a stripped down version from their 1 Mic 1 Take sessions. The original is so good too. But this one has this jazzy feel to it that gets you right in the feels. It's about being over someone you were with and you're moving on. That's the main meaning of the song. It can also mean moving on from someone you liked because it's best. I know that my buddy Mark will find this song appropriate in due time.
"Over You" by Graffiti6
YouTube link
This version of "Over You" is a stripped down version from their 1 Mic 1 Take sessions. The original is so good too. But this one has this jazzy feel to it that gets you right in the feels. It's about being over someone you were with and you're moving on. That's the main meaning of the song. It can also mean moving on from someone you liked because it's best. I know that my buddy Mark will find this song appropriate in due time.
"Over You" by Graffiti6
YouTube link
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Tinder's Bullshit "Manprovement" Inititative: A Failure of Epic Proporitons
Earlier this month, Tinder released a video entitled "The Menprovement Initiative." You can see the video by clicking here. It condescendingly starts out by saying, "Most men are great. And then there are douche bags. They can be a real problem. These women are determined to solve it."
Let's examine the opening statement starting with, "Most men are great." Did that really need to be stated? Do they think all men think that women automatically label all guys as "jerks," "assholes," or "douche bags?" Having to say that is patronizing. If you are a good guy, you don't necessarily need reminding. I try to not let it bother me, but when women use it in their rejection of me, it does bother me. But if most men are "great" than why focus on the small number of men that are "douche bags."
"And then there are douche bags?" Did they think saying "most men are great" before "and then there are douche bags" was S-M-R-T? Thank you Captain Obvious. Were you trying to build to this announcement. This isn't some sort of revelation. We know "douche bags" exist. We don't need reminding of it. They do a good job of it themselves. Instead of focusing on such a small number of men, why not focus your energy on the larger number of men deemed "great" and getting women to attract those men instead of "douche bags."
"They can be a problem." *Crickets chirp* Thank you Captain Obvious. "Douche bags" being a problem isn't some new revelation. "Douche bags" have been a problem throughout history. They are only a problem if you let them. This video proves they let them be a problem because they don't want to admit that they are attracted to these
Finally, "these women are determined to solve it." Why do they deem that its their duty to fix these "douche bags?" If you don't publicly acknowledge their existence, than they sometimes go away. They are wasting their time looking for solutions to a problem that will always be there. The next generation will go through the same thing.
They bring in Whitney Cummings and deem her a "douche bag expert." The fact she openly admits to dating douches makes what she has to say null and void. She expressly deems a guy a douche for having calf implants. Maybe the guy is self-conscious about his calves. Is a guy not allowed to feel self-conscious? I'm sure these same women who make a guy feel like crap for changing something about himself would probably support another woman who got a breast enhancement for example. Why is it okay to shame males in this regard? It's not. It's not to say the guy isn't a douche. It is more that she was quick to deem him a douche without so much as saying anything else about him. Are we just supposed to take her word for it that he was a douche based on calf implants? You wouldn't dare call a female a "douche" or "shallow" for breast implants. This is just another bullshit double standard.
Are they putting Whitney Cummings on some sort of SJW feminist pedestal because they think she has some knowledge about "douche bags" that nobody else knows? She isn't the first to deal with those type of guys and won't be the last. She even jokes about her dating life in her comedy. If she is making jokes about it, is this some indirect self admittance that her dating life is a joke? Honestly, she is no better at dealing with "douche bags" than like minded females. If she was, she'd wouldn't continually date these type of men.
Introducing some virtual items to send to men is not going to change their douchy behavior or attitude. A virtual drink in the face isn't going to change someone. They are wasting their time focusing on that small percentage of men. This "initiative" is going to fail. If they want to be "douche bags" than they will be just that.
What they hope will happen is that these "douche bags" will turn into the "great" guys. They don't want to have to "settle" for a guy who is deemed "average." Basically, they are shallow. If they weren't, they wouldn't obsess over trying to fix the problem of "douche bags." It's proven there is a higher number of desirable women vs. desirable men on Tinder. They are too focused on trying to make the "douche bags" date-able because dating someone deemed average would be lowering their standards. Not everybody fits into a certain mold.
Addressing a problem is fine, but don't start off by giving us a backhanded compliment. That's a terrible way for people to listen and or take you seriously. Did these people forget that Tinder is for hook ups? A portion of your clientele are going to be "douche bags."
If the tables were turned, we'd be deemed sexist if you we called females "douche bags" or we had a "womenprovement" initiative. But the fact women are doing this to men is because they don't think they need improving as they feel they are "perfect." Honestly, that couldn't be further from the truth.
If women had good douche bag detectors like men, they would be able to spot "douche bags" a mile away like men. But the fact they don't is why they keep going for these type of men. Don't bitch, complain, or try "improve" them when you are a part of the problem.
Saying "sorry, not all women think this way" doesn't help when men are constantly demonized and vilified. I understand not all women think this way. It also seems irrelevant just like when guys say "not all men think like this." Women have painted men with the same brush. So because you've had bad experiences with a few guys or you've had this happen with a guy, they're actually going to assume all guys are the same. But when guys do it, it's not fair. Oh the irony. If the shoe fits. I never asked to be painted with the same brush just like a portion of the women didn't ask to be painted with the same brush. It's shitty. I know. Double standards in the dating game need to disappear. But they won't.
Let's examine the opening statement starting with, "Most men are great." Did that really need to be stated? Do they think all men think that women automatically label all guys as "jerks," "assholes," or "douche bags?" Having to say that is patronizing. If you are a good guy, you don't necessarily need reminding. I try to not let it bother me, but when women use it in their rejection of me, it does bother me. But if most men are "great" than why focus on the small number of men that are "douche bags."
"And then there are douche bags?" Did they think saying "most men are great" before "and then there are douche bags" was S-M-R-T? Thank you Captain Obvious. Were you trying to build to this announcement. This isn't some sort of revelation. We know "douche bags" exist. We don't need reminding of it. They do a good job of it themselves. Instead of focusing on such a small number of men, why not focus your energy on the larger number of men deemed "great" and getting women to attract those men instead of "douche bags."
"They can be a problem." *Crickets chirp* Thank you Captain Obvious. "Douche bags" being a problem isn't some new revelation. "Douche bags" have been a problem throughout history. They are only a problem if you let them. This video proves they let them be a problem because they don't want to admit that they are attracted to these
Finally, "these women are determined to solve it." Why do they deem that its their duty to fix these "douche bags?" If you don't publicly acknowledge their existence, than they sometimes go away. They are wasting their time looking for solutions to a problem that will always be there. The next generation will go through the same thing.
They bring in Whitney Cummings and deem her a "douche bag expert." The fact she openly admits to dating douches makes what she has to say null and void. She expressly deems a guy a douche for having calf implants. Maybe the guy is self-conscious about his calves. Is a guy not allowed to feel self-conscious? I'm sure these same women who make a guy feel like crap for changing something about himself would probably support another woman who got a breast enhancement for example. Why is it okay to shame males in this regard? It's not. It's not to say the guy isn't a douche. It is more that she was quick to deem him a douche without so much as saying anything else about him. Are we just supposed to take her word for it that he was a douche based on calf implants? You wouldn't dare call a female a "douche" or "shallow" for breast implants. This is just another bullshit double standard.
Are they putting Whitney Cummings on some sort of SJW feminist pedestal because they think she has some knowledge about "douche bags" that nobody else knows? She isn't the first to deal with those type of guys and won't be the last. She even jokes about her dating life in her comedy. If she is making jokes about it, is this some indirect self admittance that her dating life is a joke? Honestly, she is no better at dealing with "douche bags" than like minded females. If she was, she'd wouldn't continually date these type of men.
Introducing some virtual items to send to men is not going to change their douchy behavior or attitude. A virtual drink in the face isn't going to change someone. They are wasting their time focusing on that small percentage of men. This "initiative" is going to fail. If they want to be "douche bags" than they will be just that.
What they hope will happen is that these "douche bags" will turn into the "great" guys. They don't want to have to "settle" for a guy who is deemed "average." Basically, they are shallow. If they weren't, they wouldn't obsess over trying to fix the problem of "douche bags." It's proven there is a higher number of desirable women vs. desirable men on Tinder. They are too focused on trying to make the "douche bags" date-able because dating someone deemed average would be lowering their standards. Not everybody fits into a certain mold.
Addressing a problem is fine, but don't start off by giving us a backhanded compliment. That's a terrible way for people to listen and or take you seriously. Did these people forget that Tinder is for hook ups? A portion of your clientele are going to be "douche bags."
If the tables were turned, we'd be deemed sexist if you we called females "douche bags" or we had a "womenprovement" initiative. But the fact women are doing this to men is because they don't think they need improving as they feel they are "perfect." Honestly, that couldn't be further from the truth.
If women had good douche bag detectors like men, they would be able to spot "douche bags" a mile away like men. But the fact they don't is why they keep going for these type of men. Don't bitch, complain, or try "improve" them when you are a part of the problem.
Saying "sorry, not all women think this way" doesn't help when men are constantly demonized and vilified. I understand not all women think this way. It also seems irrelevant just like when guys say "not all men think like this." Women have painted men with the same brush. So because you've had bad experiences with a few guys or you've had this happen with a guy, they're actually going to assume all guys are the same. But when guys do it, it's not fair. Oh the irony. If the shoe fits. I never asked to be painted with the same brush just like a portion of the women didn't ask to be painted with the same brush. It's shitty. I know. Double standards in the dating game need to disappear. But they won't.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
A Frustrating Situation
Trying to remain civil and remain friends with someone can be hard in
certain situations. I try to make the effort, but they seemingly don't
give a shit. The odd time I ask them for a favour, they can't be
bothered. It's frustrating. I want to make this friendship work, but I
have my doubts. We went from talking a lot to hardly talking at all.
In this day in age in the online and always connected world, you are bombarded with inspirational quotes, "words of wisdom," and what they call helpful advice or a helpful opinion. It's as if everybody has something insightful to say. It's like they've become some sort of self-help guru thinking that spewing sunshine and rainbows is going to make everything alright. Okay, maybe that is the cynic in me. I digress.
With a past situation, I've been told that I should be happy to be friends with the person. They never truly understood my side. It took me a long time to realize to realize that she was toxic. So this person has been out of my life for a few years. I tried to make it work, but there came a time where enough was enough. That ties in to the thing you see a lot online. You see a lot of people saying you should rid yourself of the people who are not good for you and your life. That's exactly what I did.
Circling back around to this current friend, I still consider her a friend. Again, it is frustrating. I debate with myself at times whether or not I should be friends with this person. She has changed and we've been friends for less than a year. It's nothing I did. She at one time called me her "best friend." It wasn't something I wanted to read. When females call a guy their "best friend" and they are not dating or in some sort of relationship; it makes you think you that they've been friendzoned. When I read that, I hated it. I find it cringy when a female calls a guy their "best friend" no matter what their relationship.
It makes no sense to consider someone that good of a friend than change. I try to talk to her, but it's no use. She doesn't respond. In the off chance we do talk, it ends up being about her. There were times when we were to talk about me, but the conversation ends up on her somehow. She is dealing with stuff. That's all fine and well. I am trying to deal with stuff as well. Life is hard for her. Life is hard for me. That's no reason to ignore a so-called "friend."
There are lots of times I feel like I am at the end of my tether. Lots of times I feel like saying screw it with this friendship. But I never pull the trigger. I don't have the most female friends in my life. So maybe I am trying to hold on to the ones I have. Certain ones like this friendship in this particular post I am trying to hold on to. It seems like a lost cause when I think about it. It all goes back to pulling the trigger. Am I too much of a chump for not doing it?
I just don't get what her deal is. I tried asking her recently, but again, I got no response. Ignored. I've been told I can come over anytime. I tried to that. Than I was told another time. That's was a load of shit. It is insulting when someone who called me a "best friend" promised to take me out for my birthday in June, but couldn't even do that. It's frustrating.
I've been told by a friend that I should cut her loose. Again, it's something I've considered. I've just haven't been able to bring myself to do it. Is it for the best that I do it? I know for a fact it is nothing I did for things to have ended up the way they have. I've have been wrestling and debating with myself what I should do. I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger even in such a frustrating situation. I don't know why I can't do it. I don't know what is stopping. Why can be the hardest question to answer no matter what the situation. But I know that I don't always like to deal with certain situations. Maybe that could be it, but I don't know.
It's a tough spot to be in and I doubt I'll make a decision on what to do in the interim. I'll just keep wrestling with it and debating in my head about it from time to time like I have been. Yes, I should make a decision. But I'll just let it fester. That's not a good thing to do, but I have a bad of habit of doing that. But it is what it is. I hoping things will change. The cynic in me has me thinking it won't. We'll see.
In this day in age in the online and always connected world, you are bombarded with inspirational quotes, "words of wisdom," and what they call helpful advice or a helpful opinion. It's as if everybody has something insightful to say. It's like they've become some sort of self-help guru thinking that spewing sunshine and rainbows is going to make everything alright. Okay, maybe that is the cynic in me. I digress.
With a past situation, I've been told that I should be happy to be friends with the person. They never truly understood my side. It took me a long time to realize to realize that she was toxic. So this person has been out of my life for a few years. I tried to make it work, but there came a time where enough was enough. That ties in to the thing you see a lot online. You see a lot of people saying you should rid yourself of the people who are not good for you and your life. That's exactly what I did.
Circling back around to this current friend, I still consider her a friend. Again, it is frustrating. I debate with myself at times whether or not I should be friends with this person. She has changed and we've been friends for less than a year. It's nothing I did. She at one time called me her "best friend." It wasn't something I wanted to read. When females call a guy their "best friend" and they are not dating or in some sort of relationship; it makes you think you that they've been friendzoned. When I read that, I hated it. I find it cringy when a female calls a guy their "best friend" no matter what their relationship.
It makes no sense to consider someone that good of a friend than change. I try to talk to her, but it's no use. She doesn't respond. In the off chance we do talk, it ends up being about her. There were times when we were to talk about me, but the conversation ends up on her somehow. She is dealing with stuff. That's all fine and well. I am trying to deal with stuff as well. Life is hard for her. Life is hard for me. That's no reason to ignore a so-called "friend."
There are lots of times I feel like I am at the end of my tether. Lots of times I feel like saying screw it with this friendship. But I never pull the trigger. I don't have the most female friends in my life. So maybe I am trying to hold on to the ones I have. Certain ones like this friendship in this particular post I am trying to hold on to. It seems like a lost cause when I think about it. It all goes back to pulling the trigger. Am I too much of a chump for not doing it?
I just don't get what her deal is. I tried asking her recently, but again, I got no response. Ignored. I've been told I can come over anytime. I tried to that. Than I was told another time. That's was a load of shit. It is insulting when someone who called me a "best friend" promised to take me out for my birthday in June, but couldn't even do that. It's frustrating.
I've been told by a friend that I should cut her loose. Again, it's something I've considered. I've just haven't been able to bring myself to do it. Is it for the best that I do it? I know for a fact it is nothing I did for things to have ended up the way they have. I've have been wrestling and debating with myself what I should do. I just can't bring myself to pull the trigger even in such a frustrating situation. I don't know why I can't do it. I don't know what is stopping. Why can be the hardest question to answer no matter what the situation. But I know that I don't always like to deal with certain situations. Maybe that could be it, but I don't know.
It's a tough spot to be in and I doubt I'll make a decision on what to do in the interim. I'll just keep wrestling with it and debating in my head about it from time to time like I have been. Yes, I should make a decision. But I'll just let it fester. That's not a good thing to do, but I have a bad of habit of doing that. But it is what it is. I hoping things will change. The cynic in me has me thinking it won't. We'll see.
Thursday, June 22, 2017
I Can't Like You?
Back in the ol' blogosphere. It hasn't been a year filled with blog posts as I'd have hoped. In this particular post, the content has been an all too common theme throughout the years in my blog. I could have blogged about other things in the world such as what has been going on in England. Or I could have I blogged about some of the bullshit that the premier of Saskatchewan Brad Wall has been doing. But I didn't. So that's that.
So this common theme has to do with life obviously. But it has to do with relationships and the dating life. It's something I am not particularly a fan of. It's to do with the most recent rejection. It's something that I've been thinking about lately. I see this as a double standard. It's frustrating because I've asked myself the same question multiple times.
Now, before I get into what I've been thinking about lately, I will not mention the name of this person. That's just a respect thing. Around the time she rejected me I was told that the only person that can have her is someone that doesn't want her. Doesn't that seem a little fucked up? You're never going to date because the person you want doesn't want you? I've been there and it's hard being friends with someone that you're crushing on because you want more. Trying to keep things platonic when you have those feelings is hard.
I can't like you because you don't like me like that? Who are you to tell me that? I never told her that she can't like someone that doesn't like her like that. I thought it, yes. But I never verbalized it. I never bothered to. I don't know what her reaction would have been. I've never brought it up, nor will I. I'll never know what her reaction would be. I just don't understand how one could tell someone something like that. I'm not saying she has to like me in the same way, but don't say something like that to a person. You've rejected the person. With saying that, you've added insult to injury. Don't take my feelings into account or nothing.
Don't get me wrong, she wanted to help me get over her rejecting me. I was in a bad funk because of it. It lasted a couple of days. That doesn't mean I don't have some feelings for her in that way. A "what the fuck" feeling goes through my mind when I think of what she said from months ago. You might think "get over it" as it was months ago. But that doesn't help matters. It's not the rejection that I am focusing on necessarily. I think about that from time to time. It's what she said in terms of her liking someone yet I can't like her like that.
I don't know why I've been thinking about that. Sometimes I think about things from the past. But lately this particular thing has been playing over and over in my head. This would be the same as me saying this to someone. That would be pretty shitty on my part to say something like that. I don't know what was going through her mind when she said that. I'm not going to ask her because it could piss her off. I don't necessarily want to do that. Plus she'd also ask why I'd be bringing up something from months ago.
As I stated, as much as it sucks to get rejected, that's not the issue here. The issue is how she did it and what she said. It's one of the worst ways I've been rejected. She told she didn't like me like that. Fine. I've been told that before. It never gets any easier to hear that. But to say I can't like you as the only guy who can have you is someone who doesn't like you is even worse. It doesn't make any sense. It will never make any damn sense. Ever.
Hopefully these thoughts in my head have made sense. I don't want to dwell on this, but it's something I've been thinking about this lately. If she does read this, I hope she realizes what she did was wrong. That is if she figures out it is about her.
So this common theme has to do with life obviously. But it has to do with relationships and the dating life. It's something I am not particularly a fan of. It's to do with the most recent rejection. It's something that I've been thinking about lately. I see this as a double standard. It's frustrating because I've asked myself the same question multiple times.
Now, before I get into what I've been thinking about lately, I will not mention the name of this person. That's just a respect thing. Around the time she rejected me I was told that the only person that can have her is someone that doesn't want her. Doesn't that seem a little fucked up? You're never going to date because the person you want doesn't want you? I've been there and it's hard being friends with someone that you're crushing on because you want more. Trying to keep things platonic when you have those feelings is hard.
I can't like you because you don't like me like that? Who are you to tell me that? I never told her that she can't like someone that doesn't like her like that. I thought it, yes. But I never verbalized it. I never bothered to. I don't know what her reaction would have been. I've never brought it up, nor will I. I'll never know what her reaction would be. I just don't understand how one could tell someone something like that. I'm not saying she has to like me in the same way, but don't say something like that to a person. You've rejected the person. With saying that, you've added insult to injury. Don't take my feelings into account or nothing.
Don't get me wrong, she wanted to help me get over her rejecting me. I was in a bad funk because of it. It lasted a couple of days. That doesn't mean I don't have some feelings for her in that way. A "what the fuck" feeling goes through my mind when I think of what she said from months ago. You might think "get over it" as it was months ago. But that doesn't help matters. It's not the rejection that I am focusing on necessarily. I think about that from time to time. It's what she said in terms of her liking someone yet I can't like her like that.
I don't know why I've been thinking about that. Sometimes I think about things from the past. But lately this particular thing has been playing over and over in my head. This would be the same as me saying this to someone. That would be pretty shitty on my part to say something like that. I don't know what was going through her mind when she said that. I'm not going to ask her because it could piss her off. I don't necessarily want to do that. Plus she'd also ask why I'd be bringing up something from months ago.
As I stated, as much as it sucks to get rejected, that's not the issue here. The issue is how she did it and what she said. It's one of the worst ways I've been rejected. She told she didn't like me like that. Fine. I've been told that before. It never gets any easier to hear that. But to say I can't like you as the only guy who can have you is someone who doesn't like you is even worse. It doesn't make any sense. It will never make any damn sense. Ever.
Hopefully these thoughts in my head have made sense. I don't want to dwell on this, but it's something I've been thinking about this lately. If she does read this, I hope she realizes what she did was wrong. That is if she figures out it is about her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)