re a figuratively Swift & Lively kick to the figurative nuts
so ... generally speaking, i think that celebrities are a profound waste of time, as a topic of thought, and then, when especially considering the, um, whiteness of the particular celebrity in question, why the fuck would i give two fucks about any of this? well, unfortunately, for her, the problem, the same problem her "famous pop-star friend" also suffers, is one wherein these women are, let's just say, not quite smart
enough to understand the difference between:
"as a woman, i was also created equal to men and so, have exactly as much entitlement as any man to be given a fair shot."
and
"as a woman, if you don't do what I want, you're a misogynist and need to be destroyed."
&remember, they could be speaking to a man or a woman in either of these scenarios.
the perfect, most-awesome irony (and my support of the claim that they are just. not. quite. smart. enough.) is that they are simply role-reversing misogyny. since they're both a bit stupid, it shouldn't be a surprise that they're confused about feminism, most stupid people are confused about feminism and misogyny. so mostly, the woman in question (and her famous pop-star friend) is (are) confusing being misogynistic as being feminist. they think, for some reason, that simply directing misogyny at a man, they're being feminists. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHH!!!!! oh my god, i nearly choked.
sure, we could all be proud that these women are powerful enough to "wield their feminism like a weapon," but look at the targets they have chosen. the movie star is literally trying to tear down a man who was trying to make a movie about domestic abuse. if the movie star was a real feminist, wouldn't she fight for something like, say, a female director, before the fact, instead of trying to ruin some man, after the fact? the pop star literally set in her sights, THE MAN WHO MADE HER. like, what the fuck? sure, you obviously don't owe him anything, but why must he be destroyed?
"oh but, i'm a woman, which means that I'M THE VICTIM!"
"as a woman, if i don't get EXACTLY WHAT I WANT, i will DESTROY YOU (men and women alike!)!"
really? as wealthy, famous, white women, YOU are the victims? get over yourselves. you're not embodying the definition of feminism; you're exemplifying what it looks like to be a CUNT.
obviously, there are real stories of women who are real victims, and the other ironic part is that the movie that caused all of this nonsense is supposed to be about that, and yet, here we are, discussing the famous movie star, because that is to whom the famous movie star is directing our attention, herself. BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! fucking hypocunt!
like, don't get it twisted. i obviously think that it's awesome that women, no matter who they are, are powerful enough to give swift and lively kicks to the nuts of men the world over. the problem is that stupid women seem to be unable to accurately pinpoint the most-useful targets, which ends up making all of these "feminist" efforts all about them, which, in the end, reveals them to be, perhaps, endowed with an excessive ego, which, again ironically, makes them just like any other man, which, when given the context of the men in their sights, these women are taking on men who have been giving women a shot, namely, them, and so, these two women are taking down men, on their side, and that other terrible men would love to see go away. like. duh.
fighting for more women (feminism) looks very different from fighting for fewer men (misogyny), and i just feel like you've gotta be some "prize-idiot" to be confused by the difference.
re some thoughts on some stuff
i really thought that i had some more stuff to write about, and i did, but now, i can't remember, probably because i didn't really care. i think the stuff was mostly about the consumables i've been consuming, and so, it's all pointless nonsense. i hate talking about cultural commodities, nevertheless, i do consume them.
mostly i've been consuming mediocre xmas flicks and shows. there have been a few exceptions this year, but since the genre is so ... blech ... i don't care enough to put any thought into it, so i guess i'll just list a few notable watches. if i have a comment, i'll comment.
Finding Mr. Christmas (Hallmark show)
the gender reversal for this sorta thing is absolutely fantastic. it was a phenomenal watch from start to finish.
Home Alone (um...)
a terrible fantasy being played out by both young boys and mothers alike. the boy thinks/dreams that he could "hold down the fort" all alone at the age of eight. the mother wants nothing more for christmas than for her children to want nothing more than her for christmas.
Hot Frosty (Netflix)
a seriously fun premise that really did the job!
Last Holiday (Paramount Pictures)
the fantasy seems to be that the average jane has enough money to live like a billionaire for a week. BAHAHAHAHAHA! and that as an average jane, she knows what the billion-dollar corporation needs. BAHAHAHAHAHAHA! cause she's so down-to-earth! BAHAHAHAHAHA! it's a truly great sentiment, and i genuinely enjoyed this one, cause like, i could see the workings of the fantasy so clearly.
Love Actually (internationally co-produced)
this is one seriously fucked-up movie, especially when considering that keira knightley was only SEVENTEEN when she was cast as one of the characters who GETS MARRIED! *barf* the older i'm getting, the more i'm realizing that it's not "love" that's "actually" all around us; it's, actually, forgiveness, which is not love. love is selfless. forgiveness is all about the self. needless to say, this is the last year i'll have consumed this film.
It's a Wonderful Life (um...)
the economic reality that makes the happy ending happen is the economic reality that created the situation in the first place, which means that if those people who "so generously" gave their money to bailey as a "gift" simply paid their bills, like they're supposed to, none of this would really be an issue. yea, sure, the $8K was lost, but again, it was the error of an idiot, not the greedy miser. the old greedy miser was simply handed a newspaper with money in it. there is no moral or ethical dilemma. why should the idiot get off simply because he's an idiot? if the people hadn't selfishly hoarded their money instead of paying their bills, the $8K wouldn't have been such a blow. the fact is that bailey's a loser. it's problematic to me that the community props up a loser. it reminds me of all the press surrounding a certain wnba draftee who had just finished her collegiate season the literal loser. white americans love white losers. also, the entire premise that he had so much impact completely disregards the lives of EVERYONE ELSE. who's to say that one of bailey's brother's friends wouldn't have saved him? huh? you're saying that mary wouldn't be attracted to one single other man? look at the ego on you! *vomits*
&finally, (according to my stats) we've arrived at the topic for which all of you who tune in, tune in.
if you're waiting around for Draft 3, don't hold your breath. because i job in retail, these next two weeks are the craziest fucking weeks at my fucking job. the only thing i have time to focus on is the LSAT. fortunately, i am diligent and nailing down those first drafts has really brought clarity to what i want my personal statement to state, but the actual wording for the thing is back-burning. i'm very specifically trying to not-give it any attention, because i need to put up a solid score on the fucking LSAT. i have time after the fucking test to work out all of the other writing stuffs.
*huff*
the word is consistency. with regards to this fucking LSAT, i am nothing if not consistent. &this is strange, for me; i am a different person than i used to be. my two practice tests have resulted in exactly the same practice score, in exam mode. my drills improved at an incredible rate over weeks 8&9. i am now consistently able to answer 75% of the questions correctly. i even cracked 78% in one of the reading comprehension drills *yikes* the issue is, obviously, one of speed. i feel very confident in my ability to answer ALL of the questions correctly, given however much time i need, lol. i don't need that much more time, maybe like ten minutes. not that i would answer all of the questions correctly; i would have a chance to answer them all correctly with more time.
*sigh*
in the end, i cannot be disappointed in myself or anything like that, because i clearly understand the material. about half of the questions have obvious answers to me, at this point. half of the other half either take too much time to figure out or they are a bit too complicated for me to grasp without like twenty minutes for this one question alone. the other half of the other half requires a little work, and i can get there fast enough. &none of this is a problem. the LSAT lessons specifically state that some of the questions are literally too hard to figure out in the time allotted, and the lessons specifically instruct you to SKIP THEM. you can literally miss some questions AND get a 180 (the highest LSAT score).
like i said, i've taken two practice LSATs in exam mode, and i performed EXACTLY THE SAME on both of them. i am confident i can answer a little more than half of all of the questions correctly. where i want to be, however, is at the place where i am answering three-quarters of the questions correctly, and i CAN do that, just not under the time constraints. so, practice, practice, practice *eyeroll* i'm becoming my worst, most-least liked type of person ... a studious student. yes, that's correct. i've never really had to study for anything in my life. okay sure, i always did the work (except when i intentionally didn't once i hit college), but i never studied hard. i could do the work once, and then that was that, i got an A. i either always answered all of the questions correctly or i missed one. missing multiple questions, like four or half is just painful in ways i never knew existed. nevertheless, the trend is upward, so no complaints.
luckily, the process has all been pretty straight-forward, but the LSAT is anything but straight-forward. it is in one sense: the lesson material is breaking it all down for you, if you study it. it totally isn't in another: the material within the LSAT itself is anything but straight-forward.
i'll admit it; it's hard; there, i said it out loud, &the fact that it's hard is what makes me feel stupid. &the bodybuddy/lifemate has to constantly remind me that, yes, the LSAT is hard. i'm not stupid; the LSAT is hard. GAH!!!! it would just like be a lot easier to be a genius, and then the bodybuddy/lifemate reminds me that knowing everything before you know to know it is not what makes someone a genius, &then i love/hate him a little bit. UGH!!!
&apparently, i've not really done anything intellectually "hard," which is surprising both me and the bodybuddy/lifemate. mostly me, cause, according to the bodybuddy/lifemate, "I know how smart you are." thus, it is I who does not know *sigh*
week 9 saw the opening of the test dates, and i had to painstakingly commit to a date&time. i have also found a space that will hopefully be approved for my argumentative writing. i can do this portion of the test at my leisure, in an approved space, sometime between 07Jan25 and when i take the test (i'm not entirely sure when i have to submit this portion by, but i know that it must be submitted before my score is released, so i'm just going to get it done before the multiple-choice portion of the test that i've opted to take at a test center). the argumentative writing is not part of your LSAT score, and so, i'm not even going to do any practice tests until after the new year. i am a writer, after-all (i'm thrilled at the prospect of using my "lawyer voice;" don't worry, i'll try it out here, probably soon thereafter), &this is literally the craziest time of year for my night-job in retail, so i can only do what i can do!
this means that i will take the LSAT during the January 2025 testing dates. once i've done the test, i will have two weeks to hammer out the rest of my application. i have maybe 2,000 words or so to complete all of the required elements of the application, and as a writer, i could smash out 2,000 words in a few hours, so two weeks is no sweat.
everything is so great, and i'm so so happy! i guess that's all from me for this one *smile emoji*
oh, except, &then there's this one thing that happened, on the first day of week 9. it was on the first day of week 9 that i did a practice drill, &on that drill i literally only answered three questions correctly. i had a total melt down for the entirety of the day. luckily, it was a sunday, so i wallowed and wallowed and wallowed the entire day away.
during this wallowing, the bodybuddy/lifemate was saying any and everything his little soul could think of to snap me out of it, and one of the things he said was about how even the best NBA players have had zero-point games. i, obviously, did not believe him, &his words did not cheer me up. at some point i gave up, &that was what made me feel better. i let it all go. i was done. i dropped all expectations of myself and wallowed in my own disappointment in myself. the only thing i could think to do was just go on, now knowing that there's zero hope in my doing well, or at least, doing as well as i want. so i went through the rest of the week in a calm sort of stupor, accepting that i am not as capable as i thought that i was. if i am accepted into law school, it'll be because i just barely made it, but making it is making it.
&then, the most miraculous thing happened.
curry and draymond had a zero-point game, during the SAME GAME. technically curry put up points, two free throws, lol, but draymond put up zilch. the bodybuddy/lifemate was right, and it happened exactly when i needed it to to have its most relevant impact. sorry guys. i've known for a while now that i am a witch, but i had no idea i was this powerful.
also, when i took a second LSAT practice test in exam mode at the end of week 9 (when i performed exactly the same as the first time!) i had a tiny meltdown at my computer, cried for a minute, then sat on the toilet and whimpered for a minute. while whimpering there, my own mind came up with a way to ease itself, for like the first time ever. i had the thought, "i'm nothing if not consistent," which is unusual for me. i've always lacked consistency. as a mutable fire sign, yea, consistent is not the way that i or others think of me. &so, i found myself really surprised by this new piece of evidence. obviously, two is too small a sample (ugh, these LSAT lessons are killing me! if you know, you know), but when also considering all of the drills i've done, yea, consistent is the word. &it feel strangely good.
ONWARD!
Until treasure we find, sail on!
