Who are the fat supposed to wage their war against?
I’ve always found it rather humorous when somebody could summon the ability to bring to light, analyze and subsequently profane another person’s short-comings that closely resemble their own at the whim of figuring they are just simply in such a position. Perhaps their tendency to succumb to the very same social destitution merits their professional critiqué and slander. They utilize these abrasive methods to sedate their guilt by reasoning of comparison, hoping the degree of another person’s crime can restore them to normality, and seclude them from the fact that they are as well a criminal.
However, what happens when the slanderers truly fail to realize that they are as well being slandered?
Ordinarily it would be of no sincere consequence to neglect this occurrence in reality, as I’m sure a wave of subconscious fervor or other will wash their assumed impunity away with enough time like the drunk who finally realizes that he has a drinking problem despite the fact that his buddy is in much of a worse condition.
We’ve all heard, for example, fat people remark that they are in actuality not fat, drawing upon a comparison and pointing out the fact that others are indeed much fatter. They don’t say it quite like that, however, but they’ll point presumptuously at another fat person who is fatter and say, “see, I’m not fat, now she is fat!”. It temporarily stifles the notion that she is fat but most assuredly she will eventually realize no comparison will completely quell the fact that she is, as well, a fat ass.
But what happens when the fat forget that they are fat?
It may be a mere display of ironic obnoxiousness, but it infinitely takes root in much larger symptoms as the ailment takes on more debilitating stages.
One particular symptom of this psychological disease is warfare. What happens when the fat people wage war on the fatter people in the name of thin and chiseled physique? The cultural followings of one country versus another country can be enough to insure that a fatal and exhausting prolonged struggle will ensue. Outside observers may recognize this phenomenon, but rarely can outside influences have enough momentum to cause a society to take notice of their own cultural follies.
Now a question of evolution is presented, and must be critically analyzed. If one country, for example, finds it improper for women to reveal their faces and bodies in public and another country finds it improper to reveal just a woman’s body but evil to conceal their faces and another country finds it improper for a woman to be clothed at all.. Where do we draw the line of evolution? Who is right and who is wrong in their evolutionary standards?
The U.S culture is an anomaly of contradictions, and most of them are humorous and harmless, but I find it to be of a great curiosity that they are a uniquely “evolved” state. Their unique condition is that they are the moderately fat who has waged war on the skinny and simultaneously waged war on the fatter.
It is an obscenity in U.S culture for a woman to stroll down the streets topless. There is an even greater antipathy towards a woman who would dare find it ordinary to be entirely nude in public. They arrogantly perceive cultures that behave in this manner as inferior, and they look upon these people as animalistic, barbaric, “unevolved“, and stupid. “How could they let their women just walk around naked like that?”. They behave like animals, and humans are expected to hold animals in a special and unfaltering form of contempt.
At the very same time, however, they cringe and recoil in horror at another culture that takes concealing the female body one step further. Their faces. It is not merely a consideration of differentiating cultural standards but rather an indefensible demonstration of oppression. “Look how oppressive that country is! They make their women conceal their faces!”.
Perhaps it is customary, perhaps it is tradition, perhaps it is oppression. Whatever the case may be, however, it does not negate the fact that the U.S manifestly operates identically to those who they declare a vehement cultural war against.
An American man says, “I don’t want my woman to be topless, I don’t want other guys drooling over her”. In simpler terms, he wants a woman to conceal her natural form because he fears competition and wants to avoid it at any cost. The seed has been long ago planted and ingrained into their consciousness that a woman’s body must be sexualized and therefore it has to become a form of personal property. This is why they inherently disapprove of other cultures that would permit a woman to walk around without her shirt on. It indicates and denotes a lack of purity in a sexually confining relationship; it symbolizes promiscuousness and corruption. They are confounded by the idea that they can be true lovers while simultaneously “flashing” themselves for the world to see. Only should a woman’s body be revealed in a scenario of love between her and her man.. Anything else would be impure.
Then the same American man says, “I don’t want my woman’s face to be concealed, I want others to see how beautiful she is”. The seed has been long ago planted and ingrained into their consciousness that a woman’s face is a work of art that is to be marveled and sensationalized, depicted in all of its beauty. The more beautiful a woman’s face, the more respect she receives. Consequently, a man will receive more respect if his woman has becoming facial features and he then seeks to show it off. So at the time when this American man enters into a feud with a man of another country that forces their women to conceal their faces-- the American is stultified. He will claim incessantly that it is a woman’s right to show herself and to be free, ignoring the obvious contradiction that he does not want his woman to flash herself to other men. This is how America is the fat attacking the fatter. What if the other man’s country held a woman’s face in the same regards as the American man holds a woman’s body? That it is pure and should not be open for all the public to see? Perhaps the other man does not want every man gawking at his woman’s face as he too fears competition.
Then the same American man says, “That is repressive, a woman needs to be free”, not because he really believes that but because he is conditioned to only be repressive in proper ways. Let’s assume that this American man is confronted by a tribal man from another country that asks him, “How could you force your woman to conceal her breasts? She has a need to be free”. The American man chuckles politely and looks down on the tribal man as he does not understand the tranquility of sophistication and evolution. The tribal man says, “Then why feud with man who conceals woman more?” in a gesture to make the distinction that the American man who finds the face-concealing country’s man obtuse, vulgar and even evil-- is actually admitting that the other man’s methods of concealing a woman’s face is more evolved.
Now the inquiry is obvious, and the contradiction stands in a web of ramifying counter contradictions, since now the American man cannot logically hold a grudge against a more evolved man but has tremendous difficulty figuring out who is the actual evolved man, and since he has waged war on both of them, he has to call an armistice to find out who he really wants war with.
(a) If the American man finds it inferior for a woman to be fully revealed in public, his war is with the tribal man, but that would justify the war of the other man’s country against the American man, who would have to be humbled before someone he originally thought was supremely evil.
(b) If the American man finds it evil for a woman to be fully concealed in public, his war is with the other man, but that would justify the war of the tribal man’s country against the American man, who would now have to be humbled before someone he originally thought was significantly inferior.
Pencils out boys, figure out the logic behind the motivation of your cultural conflicts.