Why Insecure Women Need to Watch Porn

I just had a revelation watching Proxy Paige get some DP action. I am not even kidding. Insecure women need to watch more porn. Here’s why:

  1. Understanding men will be much easier.

I mean…come on. We all have sexual urges. Why are we always so hard on men? Their biological make-up makes them even more prone to seek relief than women. Where you go out with your make-up on and you little dress and earrings, looking for attention… he jacks off to some MILF. Is that really as bad as you make it out to be? I know that it makes a lot of us women feel bad about ourselves and I used to be one of them, but I realized that masturbation means nothing to men. Most of the time it’s a nuisance to them. Let’s help them out by making them feel more human about being a human. It’s not some thing that they do because they are trying to hurt us. And I am speaking from a perspective of logic here. If the guy does it to hurt you, then don’t take it. But if he just wants to bust one and you ain’t there to help him, what’s the harm?

2. You will see that porn stars are not perfect either!

…and most importantly…that there are a lot of men who don’t really care for perfect women. All kinds of stuff happens in a porno and they don’t edit it out. Just today there were some rather strange sounds coming from certain areas of this girls body. But she just integrated it into her ‘act’ and laughed about it. Hell…isn’t that uplifting? In a gross way it really was. Women feel so bad about themselves, so forced to be this ‘un-human’ doll of perfection…and why? I am starting to believe that we are doing it to ourselves. That the media is using our insecurity as just another way to profit off of misery. Don’t buy into it, ladies! Porn stars fart! Sometimes unwanted stuff comes out! They have fat rolls, hell…I saw something the other week with a BBW and she had like 600.000 views. So if 600.000 people want to look at her, I am sure there are a lot more people out there finding me attractive than are willing to actually admit it.

3. You will be more likely to be sexually ‘sane’ after you have exposed yourself to it! 

Let’s be honest, girls…we are not innocent when it comes to promiscuity and perverted thoughts. But we hide it. Constantly. More efficiently and more often than men. The media demonizes our sexuality while flaunting it at the same time. But fuck the media! We are biological beings with sexual urges and it is absolutely the opposite of healthy to deny them. Most sexual perversion comes from repression. Any psychologist will tell you that. So don’t repress. Be you! And if that you doesn’t ‘fit’ into society, then fuck society. I think porn could help us open up to things and also realize that there are certain things that we don’t want, what we want and who we are. Of course there is a possibility of it going totally the wrong way and we need to be aware of that, but I believe most women to be able to come to this understanding. Exposing ourselves to what we are afraid of might just help us become detached from it enough to feel better about it.

4. We all need to feel more human! 

On a more spiritual note I would like to remind us all that we are beautiful, holy beings. In the words of Mooji: “It is precisely that I don’t accept your version of yourself […], this is the only reason I can serve you. The things you say about yourself are simply not true. I know you. I know every single being. When I look in your eyes I know who dwells there. And I know the state of that one to be perfect and holy.” YOU ARE HOLY! Regardless of what the world tells you to think about yourself, you are a beautiful creature of duality and you deserve to be loved. I don’t care about what you do when you are alone in your bedroom. I don’t care about your secrets and your flaws. You are beautiful! And so is everyone around you. You embracing sexual openness simply means you are fighting the detachment of your body and soul which is caused by a sick society who wishes to profit off of you. Stop believing them and rebel on!

So what have we learned?

Porn is not all bad! And it might be useful in many ways! So fight repression, fight oppression and embrace love!




Posted in learning, lifestyle, society | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Why You Should Tell Your Kids That You Feel Fat!

Contrary to popular belief, I am of the opinion that you should never lie to your children. “What???”, you say…”but I don’t lie to them either.” YEA YOU DO! When you hide that you’re feeling crappy about yourself one day or when you “fake” loving your body…THAT’S LYING!

But this is not about lying. This is about love, openness and mutual respect.

I have always had trouble with self-esteem. Ever since I was 8 and my dad told me that I should not eat more than one bowl of cereal in the morning, I have doubted myself. I didn’t know that having a belly was bad. I thought it was kind of cute. I loved to giggle it in front of the mirror. All of a sudden, my whole world was turned upside down. I started watching other girls, inspecting them, inspecting myself. Constantly. I began to feel as if my body was a cage that I was not in tune with anymore. And it showed. I got worse and worse. Went through all the major eating disorders. And now I’m 30 and I have a daughter. And she is so smart, so beautiful and so real.

At first I thought I needed to fake loving myself, because that’s what they tell you. There are at least 2145937 blog posts and news articles every day exclaiming that saying “God, I hate how my butt looks in those pants!” or “Sometimes I wish I was more attractive” is toxic for your child’s self-esteem. And I agree. Calm down. I agree!


When my daughter catches me saying bad things about my body, I sit her down and I tell her: “Look, baby, momma is being silly. There have been many instances in momma’s life that challenged her on feeling right about herself. And she is spending a lot of time trying to fix that.” I tell her that the world force-feeds women these feelings by making them compare themselves to other women, by making them feel inadequate and as if they have to be under constant self-surveillance. I tell her that a lot of women don’t like their bodies and that they are just scared to admit it because that would make them seem weak. I tell her that there are some women who feel so bad about themselves that they make themselves sick. I tell her that the media encourages this. That they want people to be miserable. And I tell her that the reason why they do this is to make money.”

So, I guess it’s possible that I am raising a rebel. But I welcome that. I welcome any person in my life who is real and honest.

The world tells us that we should be strong. That we should radiate strength. But hardly anyone actually has strength.

I believe that that strength comes from accepting the truth. I believe that that strength comes from telling the truth. Being open and honest about who we are and what we feel. So why should I lie to my daughter? I will not respect the rules of a world which perpetuates self-hatred. I will not force my daughter to buy into the same lies that I bought into. I want her to see the puppet strings before they destroy her.

So…tell your kids how you feel. Be honest with them. Tell them, that there isn’t enough money to pay for god damn Nutella because a few bad little people went and made bad bets on your money. And that this is why daddy goes on the balcony sometimes to be alone. Tell them that the reason why grandpa is crying, is because he sold his soul to his bank account, because the world makes him feel unloved and weak unless he has money. Tell them that the person you see in the mirror is a reflection of everything you feel about yourself, everything this greedy capitalist world has told you about yourself and that sometimes that feeling gets a little too real and it makes you sad. And it makes you do things that you are not proud of.

And I am not saying that you should give them details. Don’t tell them that, to feel better, you snort lines off of hooker’s butts and yell at the neighbors drunk in your underwear. 🙂

But don’t lie to them. They are not stupid. They need to know the truth about this world. And if some priest can tell her about Jesus being crucified and bleeding out for days like a cow in a slaughterhouse, then I am pretty sure, me telling her that the world is not looking out for her is not going to destroy her. It may even make her smarter.

So this my two cents.

Go on as you wish. But please don’t forget what you felt like when you were a kid. I am sure you knew that your parents were full of shit most of the time. And did it make you feel closer to them, or more separated? I say love your children the same way you love everyone else. Show them the respect of being truthful and real.


Posted in lifestyle, parenting, society | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

How the Liberal Media Strengthened the Monster via ‘Linguistic Neglect’: Trump

Donald Trump’s rise to fame started before he ever decided to run for president. His muppet like antics and his inability to watch his mouth are something many stressed out, pissed off, overworked and large-dreaming Americans love. He is entertaining. Not in the way Bush was, I mean, you would not want to have a beer with the man, but you would definitely want to listen to him give a pyramid scheme type speech about how to become rich AF. And you would believe him. Because he talks like you. He doesn’t seem to have a higher IQ then you, either, which makes it very likely that you could achieve what he has achieved.

And, let’s admit it. The media loves the guy. He is just so damn newsworthy. Scandals reigning as if TMZ’s editor in chief was running the show. And it isn’t just the Republican news sources that love talking about him. News sources claiming alliances to the Democratic party are as much part of the problem. How? By talking about him as much as they did and by adding certain linguistic features to their articles that are naturally going to get us thinking about his legitimacy. I mean…could he be right after all? He seems scary. Life is scary. Should I follow him?

There have been many ideas and thoughts circling around claiming that the media is at fault for Trump’s rise in popularity. They have been covering his presidential campaign like it was going out of style. Like he actually had something important to contribute. But the manipulation goes much deeper.

So I took it upon myself to take a closer, linguistic look at the array of news articles covering the Republican presidential campaign to see if I could find a pattern of subliminal Trump-Love coming from the liberal news sources. And, OMG, did I find it. I am sorry to say this but I am pretty sure the liberal media actually helped people cross over to the dark side. Not because they said nice things about him, but because they made him seem larger than life, like he could not be beaten. Like he was a small man with a huge force of power behind him. Up there on that pedestal with Darth Vader and Leather Face, he achieved what every entertainer…uhm, sorry… politician wants. FAME. Americans love famous people. They soak it up and bathe in it. Even liberals  (Don’t lie!) So thank you, liberal media, for, rather than opposing or even distracting from Donald Trump’s bullshit campaign…you pulled out the red carpet.

When linguists want to find patterns, they analyze a collection of texts. I chose ten texts from different liberal news sources including The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, CNN, and The Huffington Post.

First I wanted to get a better idea of the skill level of the journalists, considering that their linguistic skill could have an influence on the word choice of the articles. I found that the overall lexical density of the texts, which is something linguists use to determine the proficiency of authors, mainly focused on their vocabulary, was about 39%. This number is very normal. It implies an average level of proficiency and is a very common result when investigating most articles put out by major news sources. So we could not blame the intellect or journalistic ability of the authors here.

After that I checked out the most frequently used words. “Trump” is the only candidate, whose name appears in the top 30 most frequently used words in the articles, with “Carson” coming in second. Terrifyingly enough, however, while the Donald comes in at Nr. 4 of the most frequent freaking lexical nouns, Carson is Nr. 29. I mean, that is a huge difference.

And not only does Trump’s name pop up a whole lot of times, but the words surrounding his name are absolutely terrifying: the most common verbs used in sentences regarding his presidential campaign are ‘defeat’, ‘fight’, ‘beat’, ‘oppose’ while the adjectives are usually words that imply a certain degree of status or power such as ‘large’, ‘radical’, and ‘super’.

So what does that mean? Well…it means we are supposed to fear him, doesn’t it? And what do humans do when they are afraid? What are the two most common reactions? – Submission or resistance.

Now if we take a look around ourselves right now. Go ahead, take a look out of the window! Do you see much resistance? Do you see people fighting their labor-slavery? No?

Me neither!

So  I guess my point is, the liberal media needs to stop following trends. If you really want to make a difference, be as progressive as you claim, then don’t hold people back by worrying about keeping up with gossip, fear-mongering and trends.

Because it is likely that Donald Trump becomes President of the United States and if he does, I BLAME YOU, because you should have known better!


Posted in politics | Leave a comment

The Advantages and Disadvantages of Great Britain’s Unwritten Constitution


Great Britain is a country with a vast history. It has endured many years of existence and many changes have taken place. From a political perspective, a written constitution is a considerable step in the establishment of a working government. Many civilized countries take it for granted. The United Kingdom, however, does not have one. It has an ‘unwritten constitution’ which is mainly based on statutes, common law and conventions. Common law is a law which is developed over time from decisions based on rulings of courts, which are called statutes, while conventions are simply customs that have been accepted as the norm over time. Conventions are not written down. This may seem preposterous to some people. Many citizens of the United States, for example, who love to proclaim their constitution as the ‘holy grail’ of their ‘god-given rights’ would, most likely, shriek at the idea of giving up their written constitution. Nonetheless, there are advantages and disadvantages to keeping the constitution unwritten.

The disadvantages may seem more obvious than the advantages at first look. What would a written constitution offer the citizens and what would it change for the government? First of all, a clear set of rules would exist. This would instil a sense of certainty in people. In turn, this also means that there would be a given set of human rights which would protect the citizens in their individual liberties. Giving the people a sense of political transparency may help people feel less endangered by the political identity of their nation. Since it is likely that the constitutional court would be represented by a decision-making-body that stands for justice, it would offer a system of fairness and neutrality. This would also change the relationship between the government and the people in a way that would make it more difficult for the government of the United Kingdom to impose its current system on the people. For example, the first-past-the-post election system would be more difficult to justify if a rule of democracy and fair voting were written down and exclaimed as a right of the public. However, constitutions change over time. Any adjustment done by the government could lead to a loss of the right to a certain liberty which was once taken for granted. This is one of the reasons why the unwritten constitution has its advantages.

First of all, an unwritten constitution is highly flexible. It has a much higher ability of adapting to changing times. In the case of a written constitution it would, therefore be much more difficult to change the laws and human rights that have been established, which is problematic considering the changing cultural morality of the public. This process would be much easier to bring about in the case of an unwritten constitution, as the laws are already in a constant flux of change. Furthermore, how likely is it that members of the constitutional court could be corrupted and coerced to no longer represent a just system? Should an unelected judicial body really be given this much trust to represent the rights of the citizens? Not to mention, a constitution is usually a document that is ridden with legal language which is hard for people to understand. So how hard would it be to deceive the people into thinking that it means something different? If it is mostly lawyers and judges who can understand the terminology, one should wonder: Who can afford the better lawyers? Another disadvantage of the written constitution and therefore representative of an advantage of the unwritten one is that it opens doors for political bias. A particular set of ideals and guidelines is established. This is, of course, highly generalized and does not take into account the many different backgrounds of the people. An unwritten constitution offers a system of less prejudice which may be more inclined to see people as individuals instead of representatives of certain predetermined dilemmas. This could provide people with a highly individualized way of being judged.

The unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom is a much discussed topic. Most people view their written constitution as a ‘pillow of safety’, when, in reality, it may not be and should, as anything, be questioned as to how much it really provides one with what people hold as their basic rights. It has become apparent all over the world, that just having a written constitution may not be enough to provide people with a basic set of laws and rights. The unwritten constitution seems to be more adaptable and more open to individualized ways of judgement while the written constitution provides a barrier for corruption and blatant disregard of human rights. It is hard to conclude which could provide the nation with a better basis for morality and liberty, because both seem to have advantages while, in nature, completely defying each other.



Posted in politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why Great Britain is not really a Constitutional Monarchy

The United Kingdom is considered a constitutional monarchy with a unitary government in the form of a parliament. This term will now be put under the microscope: Is it really representative of the current system? Here are some interesting facts: The Monarch is the head of state while the Prime Minister is the head of government. Her Majesty’s government controls the Executive power while the parliament of the United Kingdom regulates the Legislative power. Her Majesty’s government is the central government of Great Britain, which is said to govern in lieu of the Queen’s will.  Legislative power is regulated by the two branches of parliament, which are comprised of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Throughout this post it will become evident, however, that neither the House of Lords, nor the monarch have much influence. It will also become apparent that the first-past-the-post election system, which characterizes the British general election system, contributes greatly to the perpetuation of dominance of the two leading parties in parliament. On the surface, Great Britain represents an image of a co-operation of monarch and parliament, when, in reality, it is evident that the political image of a constitutional monarchy, which it tries to uphold, is not easily justified.

The parliament of the United Kingdom is composed of two political Houses, of which only one can truly be spoken of as having true influence. The House of Lords, which used to flaunt its hereditary aristocratic influence, has lost much of its power. Having been comprised of high nobility, including lords and priests, also called Lords Spiritual, it was viewed in the past as a perfect governmental representation of the monarchy and its ideals. The present-day situation looks much different. The House of Commons – the branch of parliament which is composed of its elected members – has the greatest amount of influence in the decision-making process. The Prime Minister, who advises the Queen on which members to appoint for the House of Lords, is also, by nature of the electoral system, the leader of the majority party. This Prime Minister also chooses the members of Cabinet, which is behind many of the major decisions. It is easy to conclude that a system where one party, if not one person, holds much of the power, cannot be understood as a just one. This becomes even more obvious when investigating the British election system and how it affects the ability of minority parties to be part of the ‘think-tank’ behind the major decisions.

The first-past-the-post system of the British government is a plurality voting system, in which voters are granted the right to vote for only one candidate. The candidate with the most overall votes is then elected to be a member of parliament. This implies that the elected member does not need an absolute majority. It also means that votes are often wasted or not well thought-through because of the limited possibilities. Since there is a limited number of possible members for parliament to choose from, one is likely to choose the one who had the best chance against the one who is in power, if one is so inclined to desire a change in the system. In a system like this, absolute domination of two parties in parliament, one of them playing the greatest part in the workings of parliament on an election-term basis, is inevitable. This kind of system is one of tactical manipulation which encourages a type of compromise on the side of the people that cannot be considered fair to the public. It looks like a just system on the surface when, in reality, it is highly limited and limiting.

Another issue, which has to be addressed when investigating the validity of term “constitutional monarchy” is that of the decreasing influence of the monarch. The Queen still has her royal prerogative, which includes appointing the Prime Minister and dissolving the government, if necessary, but most of her influence is merely ceremonial. To make it more formal, it has actually been established in the Magna Carta that the royal prerogative can only be acted upon under consent of parliament. The monarch is, undoubtedly, the most popular representative of Great Britain. The Queen, as well as the royal family she is head of, is celebrated in many forms and people all over the world are taken with the beauty of the rituals and traditions. However, that is the extent it takes. The royal influence has become a ceremonial facade, behind which the parliament ‘pulls the strings’ and makes the decisions which affect the citizens of the United Kingdom.

The workings of the British political system are, by no means, transparent or easy to comprehend. On top of that, much has changed over time, with many of the changes having played out in favor of a two-party parliament, with turns being taken on one of them perpetually leading on a basis of absolute power. The monarch has lost influence. The House of Lords has been cut out of the decision-making process and the voting system does not seem to really justly support the will of the people. So the question remains: Can Great Britain be referred to as a constitutional monarchy?


Posted in politics | Leave a comment

Culture Shock Germany – Deconstructing German Stereotypes

In the States you are force-fed all kinds of stereotypes about Germans. Either we see the grumpy and overly critical German on “The Simpsons” or experience public media notions of German superiority in the form of market domination in the auto industry. But we also see the drunken, big-bellied soccer-fan with a Bratwurst in his hand who is beating a fan of the opposing team in the head with a beer-bottle. However the most common assertions are ideas of German directness, punctuality, their love of beer, Bratwurst and soccer, and, above all, the intense need for order and cleanliness. But how true are these stereotypes?

As a person who has spent the most developmentally relevant part of her life in the United States, and someone with a self-proclaimed eye for social structures and dysfunctions, I would like to offer my perception of “the German” within the confines of the culture shock which I experienced after moving back to Bremen.

Let’s attempt to deconstruct the common stereotypes.

  1. Germans are punctual.

Sorry, but no! Let’s get real. How many times have you stood outside of an administrative office and asked yourself if you wrote down the wrong appointment time? Germans are not any worse than Americans in their punctuality, but they are not punctual. The only way I can explain the overwhelming belief which still seems to exist on the internet, that Germans are punctual is that maybe this is something which is exclusive to Bremen. If so, get with the program, Bremen! It really sucks to have to wait 20 minutes for my job interview because your Macchiato tasted so good, you had to revel in its glory.

  1. Germans are orderly.

This is only half true. On the surface everything seems very orderly. Germans are the kings and queens of image and status. Every German looks completely composed and in control until you open that backdoor where they all stash the stuff that they didn’t have time to properly put away before you showed up. Of course this is meant metaphorically as well as, in some cases, literally. However, I personally believe that it is precisely that orderliness which is causing Germans to become less orderly. Germans are so caught up in their order that anything outside of the established systems reinforces feelings of deep illogic to Germans. And when something is illogical, it is so scary to Germans. Don’t believe me? Go to the Jobcenter and tell them that you don’t have any official documentation for your job experience. They won’t know what to do with you.

  1. Germans are direct.

Yes. Painfully so. But it comes with an extreme opposite. The interesting phenomenon is that, even though Germans love to criticize each other, they also cannot handle being criticized.  Having spent a good amount of time in the US, the asshole-nation, I was used to people yelling at each other publicly. Everyone yells in the US regardless of age and status. At least it seems that way to me. In contrast, there is a grand divide between Germans who dish out and Germans who don’t. This is usually based on age and status. It is far more common for the retired carpenter with a decent pension to yell at the young Bushido fan with pants under his butt than the other way around. So when you are someone who is young and alternative but does not base self-worth on status and age, most Germans will not anticipate a thought-through, objective response to their unnecessary criticism. This is all related back to the orderliness. Things simply do not make sense to Germans if they cannot be anticipated. And then you are left with the look of fear in Herr Schnitzelstein’s face when you come up with a smart comeback to his prejudicial criticism. Germans are direct. Germans are critical. Germans are fucking rude.

And let me add a stereotype:

4. Germans are ridiculously impatient

Germans are always running around like they are in the process of missing a plane to the most important appointment of their life. Standing in line at the grocery store is torturous. The guy or girl behind you stares you down in a way that would not fly in the US. You would get punched on a daily basis. Then…if you don’t have your money counted perfectly by the time the cashier utters the amount that is due, death by cannibalism becomes a real possibility.

      5. Germans love Bratwurst, Beer and Soccer

Yea, ok. That one is mostly true. Although the Bratwurst thing is not so popular anymore because Germans are not complete in their dumb-ass status ideals unless they are healthy. So many of them would not let their friends see them choking down a Bratwurst because it isn’t organic or whatever. You know what? The beer and soccer thing though: It’s one of the only things I enjoyed. Even though soccer fans are terrifying like a group of bulls ready to trample you…the fact that they feel comfortable screaming strangely Nazi-sounding Werder Bremen songs at 3 o clock in the morning on public transportation is a sign of freedom from the kind of order addicts US cops represent. It is sad to me, however, that Germans feel like they cannot be “wild” in any other circumstance. And this is probably why they go so crazy when it is considered appropriate and without danger to their status. Government approved rebellion.

I guess all the things Freud asserted in “Civilization and its Discontents” are still valid.





Posted in society | Leave a comment

Learning Experiences: Donations for Refugees – Why It Is So Important To Experience New Things

Every person’s life includes a series of learning experiences which lead to personal development on many different levels while a basic moral understanding teaches people to reach out to others in need. These two aspects were behind the drive to organize the project which my group and I titled “Christmas in a Shoe-Box”. The goal of the project was to collect Christmas donations for young refugees to be handed out at a holiday event arranged by ‘Flüchtlingshilfe Bremen’. However, on a personal level, it was more than just a charity project. It was also a learning experience which led me to understand things about myself as well as others while giving me the opportunity to test my ability to approach problems effectively and become an efficient part of a team.

It began with an idea. We were all very interested in working with or helping refugees in some form because of it being an important issue at the time. Finally, one of the members of the group suggested that we work with ‘Flüchtlingshilfe Bremen’ on a holiday event which they were organizing. We felt that collecting donations and preparing shoe boxes full of toys and clothing would be something we could handle so we suggested the idea to the manager of the refugee camp nearby. After getting a ‘green light’ from her, we sat down together as a group to talk about how we would proceed. We discussed which materials would be needed, which information would be necessary, where we would store the donations, how much time we would need to invest in the project and how we would get people’s attention. I decided to work on the flyer while the rest of the group handled other tasks, such as obtaining a list of names and ages of the young refugees and collecting materials such as gift wrap and shoe boxes. We decided to form a ‘what’s-app-group’ to stay in contact, as well as keeping each other informed by writing progress reports and sending them to each other via email. After designing the flyer and then putting it up on campus as well as posting it in several ‘Facebook-groups’, we experienced a large interest in the project in general, as well as getting a number of responses regarding the donation process, which ultimately led to us receiving far more donations than necessary. After we finished filling the boxes and wrapping the gifts, the remaining donations were stored in an archive until an employee of the University could move them to be donated to other projects. During this process the members of my group decided which tasks to manage. These tasks included picking up donations from people who were unable to come to the University, maintaining contact with the manager of the refugee camp, collecting necessary materials, and organizing storage rooms and a vehicle to move the gifts to the camp. Our group worked well together with each of us taking charge of a task which we felt best suited for.

To me, the way that my group members and I managed to pick our tasks without much discussion was one of the fascinating aspects of this experience. For example, my decision to design the flyer was made after another group member wrote an email regarding what he felt was still necessary for the project to progress. At the same time as I decided to use my skills to create the flyer, other group members decided which task they would select. The collaborative work of my group felt very organic, which is a new experience for me. In the past, I had had bad experiences with group members showing a lack of interest in projects as well as groups often suffering from an unbalanced level of input by group members. This time every member of the team put in an equal share of work and used his or her skills to contribute to the project. I never felt like I was treated unfairly. This was an important learning experience for me because I had become rather doubtful of people’s intentions in relation to working in a team, which, ultimately, influenced the way I saw my social environment. In fact, this experience has helped me understand that I have unfounded preconceptions of people, which influences the way I see the world around me. Furthermore, I have come to realize that it is important for my own sanity to remain trustful of my social surroundings. Assuming negative outcomes before getting to know the end result is harmful not only to the group but also to myself.

Another reason why I learned this lesson is the negative response I received after posting the flyer in several ‘Facebook groups’. Some people were very upset about the project and resented the fact that we would be giving donations to refugees. The reasons for these responses are not clear, but it became obvious to me, that some people felt that refugees did not deserve donations because of their origin and religious beliefs. I firmly believe that, when it comes to kindness, it does not matter who gives or takes, but simply that people share positive energy with each other. I was appalled by the idea that some people were held to be more deserving of kindness than others. I always knew that some people opposed immigration but I had no idea that people would oppose a simple act of kindness. I thought a lot about the reasons for their responses and I spent a lot of time wondering how they came to be so miserable that they would feel this way about our project and I decided that my own preconceptions about the world, after being subjected to negative experiences in my life, could cause me to turn out like the people I was so appalled by. This realization was very important to my personal development. After all, kindness is rewarding for both parties involved and remaining free of prejudice is an important aspect of maintaining a positive mental state.

In this way, breaking free from subjective thinking and seeing myself objectively, for a time, encouraged me to look at myself in different ways and helped me identify my strengths and weaknesses. Of course, the project itself was highly rewarding. Knowing that my work directly affected people in need in a positive way was extremely gratifying and gave me a feeling of ‘giving back’ what I had received from others during times in which I struggled with homelessness and poverty. It also taught me important lessons regarding management issues, such as not to underestimate time constraints, how to respond professionally to inquiries and, also, how to avoid letting negative responses create feelings of stress. Most of all, however, this experience has taught me to keep a positive mental state and has helped me re-evaluate my preconceptions about working in groups and trusting people in general. I plan to maintain this positive outlook to increase my interpersonal skills and work on my management competence. I also hope to organize more charity and donation projects in the future as well as committing other acts of kindness to help others as well as myself.





Posted in society | Leave a comment