Originally from a reply posted in Baiko's journal, a general musing

I think people tend to find odd what is "different" - a reason men don't typically socialize with women primarily, or vice versa - why women need girlfriends, and there are guys' nights out, and that socialization with the opposite gender (because for most people, having neither or both genders, mentally or physically, isn't even a concept that they can comprehend) is frequently a sexually motivated thing.

I'd say that people under the age of 25 (and maybe even 30) are starting to break away from this view - as a whole, which unfortunately doesn't mean specifics, and more focused in certain areas. (Canada as generally more liberal than the States, Toronto being more liberal than the Prairies, etc.) But I do think that the trend is moving towards an acceptance of the "other", that intergender/interracial/inter[blank] is becoming more common and more accepted, as is ambiguity and grey areas. I think that in American society right now, there's a backlash going on because of prevailing government and social groups, but that overall, this is a social trend that is coming forth in Western society, particularly here, in Canada.

I don't know how it will end up, but I do think that we're going to wind up as generally more liberal.

Fast fact - Early sex surveys revealed that about half of all women who came of age in the 1920's admitted to engaging in premarital sex (defined as coitus), a figure that held steady for women in later decades. More here at History News Network

I should really be sleeping.

I don't want to sleep.

I think what I really want to do is write something. Unfortunately, my requirements for "writing something" mean it has to be a) interesting, b) cool, and c) worthwhile, and when you have a hard time convincing yourself that a) isn't something you can pull off, it's difficult to get words out.

I have an overarching worry that my English teachers didn't/don't actually know what they're talking about. If only English were formulaic, like math... and then, I suppose, the interest would be gone. But then I wouldn't be left with the feeling that I'm really only convincing myself I know what I'm doing. A 91% would mean something outside of a subjective context; for example, that 91% of people would agree with me, or 91% of people would find my work interesting, or enlightening.

I think tied into the problem is that I don't know if I'm interesting, and worry that I'm not. I think I have little basis for comparison. While I may think I'm witty or insightful, that may just be because I play off of Pete, Adrian and Patrick, and mocking them will make ANYONE seem witty and insightful. (*evil grin*) The same goes for Simon. It takes some amount of talent to be funny, but when I'm playing off people that are my age (or within five years of it), I can't be sure that it's actual wit. It's like telling jokes to five year olds - if you know how to play it, you can make them laugh, but does that mean you're actually humorous?

Also, I lack the credibility of a published author, or a renowned scholar, or even just someone that's got their diploma. While I have a score of credibility that ranks higher than a high school student (in most people's books), I rank lower than a university graduate, and maybe on par with a college graduate. I also have to factor in the fact that I'm young, lowering my score in the eyes of others.

The last factor is humility. Too often, you can see examples of people who completely bypass credibility, manufacturing it for their own purposes with false statistics and rhetoric. Worse yet, there are the people that attribute credibility to themselves without ever realizing that they have none. I do not want to be one of those people.

But when do I reach a mark of credibility that will allow me to pursue a goal? Am I falling prey to the belief that one needs a university education to contribute to society? Or is that an acceptable belief? Assuming I want credibility in a field that the university will illuminate, of course - I don't expect to be considered a reliable source of information on cars, for example. But will a degree in the liberal arts, specifically English, give some weight to my words as an author, or reporter, or editor? Would a drama degree make me more suited for a role at Stratford than someone off the street? Is there something to be said for natural talent?

I just want an objective standard to rate myself by. Is that so difficult a task?