Meh, I'm not voting, because 1) I actually can't because I'd have to vote in my permanent residence, which isn't around here, and 2) I'm so greatly uneducated on current politics that I couldn't make an educated vote.
(03-23-2014, 04:31 AM)crazysam23 Wrote: [ -> ]I understand that most Canadians already are tired of hearing about how the Quebecois are "French". Would they be less willing to visit Quebec if it was no longer part of Canada? Is that a risk that Quebec should take? 
hrug:
Sorry, Joel, but Quebec and France haven't had much in common for 200 years. Even their languages are basically different dialects now. They're like England and the USA, where both countries speak English but are dissimilar.
This is something for Joel to speak about, but from what I can tell they don't see themselves as 'French'. France is to Quebec what Britain is to America and English speaking Canada. I've seen a lot of Quebecois people ranting and raving about how they aren't France on Canadian news sites and all across the internet. I've seen the same with French-speaking Swiss people. The idea that they see themselves as 'French' seems to be the English speaking world's interpretation of events, when in reality they see themselves as their own nation. 'French Canadian' might as well be a term designed to promote assimilationism, just like various hyphenated groups.
This is just based on what I've observed from the outside.
Well we Quebecers and French-Canadians identify ourselves as "French", albeit in a somewhat erroneous way; we're only really "French" in the sense that we speak a dialect of French. I don't think anyone here who isn't from France actually identifies as being French in terms of culture or heritage.
I think the real test if someone is French or not is if they surrender at the first sign of a fight.
I feel like they could probably become independent without any problems arising, but its politics, so something will come up an people will make it into a huge issue.
And Joel, thats pretty much how I see every election in the US. Especially presidential elections. Both candidates are terrible, but I dislike one slightly less than the other. Also I'm aware that I'm not informed at all about any of the issues. Though I'm also pretty sure that politicians are just as badly informed as I am.
So I've been on imgur a lot lately, and seeing some of the stuff that gets posted has gotten me thinking. There are a lot of pictures of hot chicks, and every time there is someone complaining about the objectification of women, often a lot of people. Now I generally agree that women should not be treated as "sex objects", that there should be less of a focus on just being "skinny" (though I think our cultural model of beauty is already shifting more towards an athletic look), and that there should be less photoshop.
However I've noticed something which made me think. The standards for men aren't any more attainable. We all grew up with super heroes more muscular than any living human being. Actors are just as different from the general population as actresses are. Men's pictures on magazine covers get photo-shopped as well, and although it isn't as prevalent as female advertising, there is a significant amount of advertising where a photo-shopped muscular dude is used to sell the product.
But you know what the thing is? That doesn't bother me. I don't have self esteem issues, and I don't judge myself based on the way people look in magazines or movies. I do want to put on more muscle, but I never want to be huge like bodybuilders, or even like many actors are. I honestly don't even think that much muscle looks good, although many people do. And the thing is, I feel like a lot of this is true for most guys. You never hear men complain about the unrealistic standards our society places on men. When pictures of shirtless buff dudes get posted on Imgur I have not seen a single guy complain "You're objectifying men!".
So why does it bother women so much? I really don't get it. Thoughts?
(03-27-2014, 09:46 PM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]But you know what the thing is? That doesn't bother me. I don't have self esteem issues, and I don't judge myself based on the way people look in magazines or movies. I do want to put on more muscle, but I never want to be huge like bodybuilders, or even like many actors are. I honestly don't even think that much muscle looks good, although many people do. And the thing is, I feel like a lot of this is true for most guys. You never hear men complain about the unrealistic standards our society places on men. When pictures of shirtless buff dudes get posted on Imgur I have not seen a single guy complain "You're objectifying men!".
So why does it bother women so much? I really don't get it. Thoughts?
I think part of it has to do with how women see themselves. Women like to feel beautiful. They like to hear praises and compliments.
Now, of course, men like to be told we're handsome/good-looking/etc. Boys don't grow up looking at male singers/celebrities and getting the impression that that's how they should look.
How a female singer/celebrity looks to a young girl can influence how she thinks of the concept of "beauty". And young girls aren't old enough to understand that the standard female singers/celebrities portray is often due to photoshopping or something like that.
Basically, the contrast is due to the way the male mind is vs. how the female mind is. Men just have different priorities than women, in the looks department. Young men don't spend hours doing their hair or makeup or clothes. They just shower, get dressed, etc. Done in 30 minutes. Young women learn to focus more on the details of beautifying themselves.
I'd also say that the (modern western) female ideal body is more unified than the male; the masculine ideal of Schwarzenegger-body is less appealing to many than a normal buff body or just a normally normal one, while women should be thin. There might be some variation on how thin is thin, and proportions of other stuff and stuff, but in general I'd say the set of feminine ideal bodies is more marginal than the male. I'm not sure if this actually affects anything, but it might help give one side more suggestive power.
Beyond that, I'd just say that it's the millenial old heritage of one gender being objectified and having their aestethics being made sole positive trait, etc, etc.
Yeah, I suppose. Although I spend quite a bit of time on my hair and clothes. More than most girls at my school I'm pretty sure, just because half of them aren't even self aware about the fact that they're girls.
I also feel like people shouldn't bitch about the "standard" unless they've actually made an effort to attain it. I mean I wouldn't say that to anyone's face, but even if they stopped using photoshop entirely, the majority of women would still not be anywhere close to the "standard" of beauty. Which is fine, you don't have to be good looking to be a person, it just doesn't make sense. Like I'm not gonna bitch about how hard it is to become a concert pianist, because I've never put any effort into doing that. Lowering the standards wouldn't even help me.
(03-28-2014, 03:33 AM)Danjo Wrote: [ -> ]I also feel like people shouldn't bitch about the "standard" unless they've actually made an effort to attain it. I mean I wouldn't say that to anyone's face, but even if they stopped using photoshop entirely, the majority of women would still not be anywhere close to the "standard" of beauty. Which is fine, you don't have to be good looking to be a person, it just doesn't make sense. Like I'm not gonna bitch about how hard it is to become a concert pianist, because I've never put any effort into doing that. Lowering the standards wouldn't even help me.
Yes, but if you got the idea when you were young, that you were physically inferior to concerts pianists...wouldn't that affect your young ego? That's kind of what happens with a lot of young girls who idolize some of these female singers/celebrities a bit too much.