My simple contemplation

The Imitation Game

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Thu, 23 Apr 2026 07:00:00 +0000

Knightley and Cumberbatch in 'The Imitation Game'

In fact, I am not really into movies; therefore, in my entire life for almost 60 years, I don't watch a lot of movies. This became my excuse to say that just two days ago -- April 21 2026 -- I 'found' a movie entitled THE IMITATION GAME, which was released in 2014 when scrolling youtube. 2 actors playing there -- Benedict Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley -- attracted me more to watch it.

The beginning note appeared saying that the movie was based on a true story made me feel excited, I became more dumbfounded when finding out that Benedict played as Alan Turing, a mathematician who invented computer! (pardon me for being so 'late' to know and watch this movie! Lol) o my god. I remember the time when I let myself spend hours a day on one social media; some people mentioned Alan Turing's name as a whiz, some others despised him as being a gay. (FYI, this is in Indonesia.) this kinda useless 'debate' went on and on and on. People who love using this latest technology but despise homosexuality keep creating excuses to accept the fact that Turing was one important persona in inventing computer.

The first impression Turing -- or you can say Cumberbatch -- gave me in the beginning of the movie was that this man was really a smart cookie, a prodigy that was on par with Einstein! The way the movie illustrated Turing as a nerd who was not so social justified my idea that a genius was usually a nerd, despite the fact that some people say the real Turing was not that nerd as Turing in this movie.

The next impression was heart-breaking for me: when I knew that Turing was punished for his being homosexual by the British government. (Being a homosexual was considered a criminal in British law back then.) How the British government didn't appreciate Turing for what he had done -- to break the code of Enigma that resulted in the shorter period of the WW was almost impossible for me. The ability of Turing (and his co-workers) to decode Enigma -- that resulted in saving thousands of lives -- didn't help to save him from being injected with 'hormone therapy' to 'cure' his homosexuality. (so, in fact, homosexuality was analogous with crime or disease?)

13 years after Turing passing, the British government passed the Sexual Offences Act, decriminalizing homosexual acts in private between two consenting men over 21 in England and Wales.

In 2009 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, speaking on behalf of the British government, publicly apologized for Turing's "utterly unfair" treatment.

46 years after the Sexual Offences Act passed, Queen Elizabeth II granted Turing aroyal pardon.

And just yesterday, in 2026, I happened to read a thread where (Indonesian) people still considered homosexuality a disease. More than a thousand likes on the thread, and hundreds of comments agreed with it. (sigh ~~)

PT56 13.53 23 April 2026

Alan Turing

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Wed, 22 Apr 2026 04:51:00 +0000

I copied the following article from this link.

It’s All Relative: How Beauty Standards Have Evolved Throughout History

Journal Boudoir

As a boudoir photographer, I’m constantly hearing women talk in depth about the parts of their bodies they don’t like.

“I hate my arm flab.”

“My boobs are so small. I look like a man.”

“Maybe I should wait until I’ve lost another ten pounds before we schedule the shoot.”

“Make sure my hair stays in place so you can’t see how big my forehead is.”

I’ve heard women criticize themselves over things that I didn’t even know you could be insecure about, like the shape of their nail beds, or having “asymmetrical lips”, or the dimples on the small of their backs (or lack thereof). The things some people consider to be beautiful, others see as mere flaws, and this is nothing new. Humankind’s beauty standards have always changed from decade to decade and from country to country.

Some of us are convinced that we are just objectively unattractive when in reality, beauty is completely relative. Just because we were born into a time where our physical traits weren’t in fashion doesn’t mean that we are any less beautiful than those women who were lucky enough to be born during a time where their appearance is in favor. Almost every woman alive today would have fit the mold of the “ideal” woman during one era or another.

As I wrote this post, I had each and every woman I’ve ever worked with in mind; not only do I truly think all women are beautiful in their own unique ways, but I also think that the things we dislike about ourselves are often the things that make us beautiful in someone else’s eyes.

25,000 BCE

Behold: the Venus of Willendorf, the heavily idealized standard of beauty during the Paleolithic, or “Old Stone Age”. Though she may not be what we think of today when we imagine an “idealized” woman, this is, in fact, what a desirable woman would look like during this time. The fact that her face is completely absent and the arms are so small and unpronounced tells us that the artist’s aim wasn’t to create a meaningful portrait of a real person, but to create a sculpture emphasizing the most sexually appealing parts of a woman’s anatomy – large breasts, thighs, stomach, and pronounced genitals. Fertility sculptures that are almost identical to this one have been found in excavation sites all around the world, all dating back to this time period.

1550 BCE

Women and men in ancient Egypt were in many ways seen as equals, but not when it came to beauty. While men were expected to have a reddish-brown skin tone, a woman’s complexion would ideally be more of a light golden tan. Men were expected to have angular bodies with broad shoulders, and a desirable woman’s body was more soft and rounded. A pronounced stomach and a plump, slightly sagging butt were nothing to be ashamed of, in fact, they were greatly admired!

300 BCE

What better example of the ideal woman in ancient Greece can you think of than Aphrodite, the goddess of beauty? And is she depicted with a six-pack and huge boobs? Of course not. Aphrodite, the epitome of physical perfection, is portrayed with distinct stomach rolls as she crouches. I don’t know about you, but if stomach rolls are good enough for the goddess of beauty, they’re good enough for me.

In ancient Greece, the ideal woman was plump, with wide hips and small breasts. Being beautiful was very important in Greek culture, and many women were willing to sacrifice their health in pursuit of physical perfection. Women would sometimes coat their skin in makeup made with white lead (which happens to be toxic). Blondes and redheads were considered to be especially beautiful, so women would sometimes bleach their hair with vinegar (which often caused hair loss). As for facial features, a prominent nose and small lips were the most favorable.

800 AD

Vikings sometimes get a bad wrap, being labeled as brutal savages who did nothing but pillage, murder, and rape. But, when you compare their way of life with the cultural norms of the rest of the Western world at the time, they were actually much more civilized than people realize. Unlike the other settlements and countries throughout the rest of Europe, women in Scandinavia had many rights; the right to own land, the right to request a divorce, and the right to join the men on raids. Additionally, the Vikings valued personal care more than most peoples of the time. While most Europeans of the era never bathed a day in their lives, Viking women often bathed as frequently as once a week, taking exceptional pride in maintaining long, shiny hair. Women were admired for having bright white arms, which, again, may have been due to their “obsession” with appearing to be as clean as possible, since most cultures at the time viewed dark skin as a sign of poverty or poor hygiene.

1400

During the Renaissance, large foreheads were thought to be a sign of great beauty, and although blonde hair was all the rage, women would often pluck their hairlines back and thin their eyebrows in order to make their foreheads appear larger. Pear-shaped women were thought to be the most beautiful; women were proud of their curvy hips and thighs, but would flatten their chests with tightly bound corsets.

1790

Queen Louise of Prussia, pictured above, was widely considered to be the most beautiful woman in Europe during the Georgian era. During the 1700’s and early 1800’s, “beauty” was synonymous with “proportion”. A conventionally beautiful woman was neither too tall nor too short, neither “too thin” nor “too plump”, with a long neck, large breasts, and a tapered waist. Much like in ancient Greece, a prominent nose and small lips were considered to be very beautiful, as was a round face with a slight double chin.

1880

During the Victorian Era, men wanted women who fit the role of the “damsel in distress”; women who needed to rely on strong men to protect them. Because of this, women were expected to be feminine, delicate, and even sickly. During the 1880s, women desired an “s-shaped” silhouette, and in addition to tight corsets that accentuated the waist and lifted the breasts, women wore dresses with layers upon layers of ruffles that gave the illusion of a larger, more exaggerated butt. Due to their incredibly tight corsets, it was often difficult for women to breathe, which made fainting spells a common occurrence. This contributed to the perpetuation of the idea that frailty was a trait of beautiful women. Few women wore makeup, and those who did usually only wore rouge and eyeliner, which also contributed to that look of emaciation and illness that was considered to be attractive.

1920

In contrast with the femininity that was expected of women in the Victorian era, androgeny was all the rage during the 1920s. For the first time in hundreds of years, women were ditching their corsets, which were too restrictive for the active lifestyle of this new generation of wild, rule-breaking women. Curves were no longer in vogue; women aimed to maintain a slender figure and wore loose, shapeless dresses that understated and hid any natural curves. Some “radical” women began wearing pants (several of whom were arrested for “cross-dressing”). In another act of rebellion, women began cutting their hair short, which was shocking and offensive to both men and women of older generations. Keep in mind, despite the fact that women had just won the right to vote, many people still felt that women were the inferior sex and that they could never be seen as equals to men. Because of this, there was an underlying societal pressure for women to prove that they were just as capable and intelligent as men, often by downplaying the qualities that made them conventionally feminine, and this heavily influenced the beauty standards of the time.

1950

By the 1950s, the world had changed in very dramatic ways. The Great Depression and World War Two had taken a toll on the economy, forcing women in the 1940s to make due with what they had. Because of rationing, women would use eyebrow pencils to draw “seams” up the backs of their legs to make it look like they were wearing nylons, and they began making alterations on men’s suits to repurpose them into dresses (which led to the very popular trend of wearing padded shoulders). But by the 50s, the economy was booming for the first time in decades. The beauty industry took off like never before, providing fashionable dresses and cosmetics at affordable prices to women of every class. The availability of these products, amongst other factors, created a societal expectation for women to “keep up appearances”, and always look their best. Full lips with bright red lipstick were the new trend, as well as voluminous hairstyles. As women began gaining a little more weight (due to the fact that food was no longer being rationed, as it had been in the previous decade), the hourglass figure became the most desirable shape, which brought about the re-popularization of corsets. Contrary to popular belief, “plus-sized” women were not the ideal of the time, at least, not what we could consider today to be “plus-sized”. Women still wanted thin arms and legs, as well as a tiny waist, but they also wanted large breasts and round hips. By today’s standards, the ideal women in the 1950s were still quite thin.

In recent years, we’ve made leaps and bounds when it comes to expanding our ideas of what we consider to be “beautiful”. For the first time ever, the media has begun representing women of many different sizes, shapes, complexions, sexual orientations, etc. in their advertising. We still have preconceptions that have been ingrained into our cultural consciousness about who the most beautiful women are, and we still have a long way to go when it comes to accepting that beauty comes in many forms, but I’m optimistic about the coming years.

So, what can we learn from this? When it comes to beauty, there is no set of rules. In 100, 200, 300 years from now, the physical qualities that our society glorifies will fall out of fashion and traits that we typically think of as “unattractive” will become the new gold standard. Our perception of beauty is not based in fact, but rather, an ever-changing set of societal opinions that ultimately mean nothing.

Whether you feel that our culture affirms or denies this, you are beautiful. I encourage you to show yourself a little love this week, whether it’s booking a boudoir session, buying a new dress that makes you feel great about your body, meditating, or whatever makes you feel like the best version of yourself.

Grey Divorce

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 08:16:00 +0000

How well do you think you know your partner?

I have known this stuff (people do not always know well their partners) since time immemorial for sure. Nevertheless many people do not consider it a kind of problem in a relationship. Some reasons for this, perhaps, because they believe that 'what has been united by God must stay the way it is' (for Christians?) and a kind of social pressure that 'you must be loyal to your spouse no matter what has happened in your marriage in order to be considered you are a good man/woman.' (This kind of social pressure does not only belong to women, does it?)

I was kinda appalled by this (again) when I accidentally 'found' a film entitled HOPE GAP. Edward and Grace who have been married for 29 years finally got separated. Is it only because for the past one year Edward has been seeing another woman?

Grace: "We have been married for 29 years!"

Edward: "I have tried (surviving in this marriage) for 29 years!"

I came to think that in fact Edward had realized much earlier that their marriage didn't run well, one thing that Grace didn't realize! However, Edward was a type of a man who could not say forward to his wife about how he felt. Grace, on the other way around, had been busy with her own way of thinking that everything was okay. The only thing that was not okay was Edward who could not balance her 'emotion'. Edward would rather be quiet than talk openly when things got strained between them. Perhaps because he realized that there was no use to talk to the dominant Grace?

(to some extent, this reminded me of my (first) marriage. My ex would rather be quiet than respond to me. The difference was: Edward left Grace, I divorced my ex. The reaction of my ex was somewhat similar to Grace's: refused to be separated.)

I am of opinion that I could blame our intellectual gap. Grace blamed Edward who chose to live with another woman.

In one conversation with Jamie, the son, Edward said he believed that Grace only loved the idea' of a man she invented in Edward, not the real Edward; he used to believe his (old) feeling toward Grace as love but he was wrong. They both never really loved each other as a couple.

N.B.:

You may read about grey divorce in this link.

MS48 - MS 58 15.10 10 February 2026

N.B. (2):

I am very much impressed with what Angela said to Grace, "prior to the separation, there were three unhappy people. now, there is only one." that statement seemed to be able to make Grace realize that no matter what, she has lost Edward. Edward would never come back to her. (she really did not understand Edward though she claimed she loved him.)

Why did Big reject Samantha in episode 1 SATC?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Mon, 03 Nov 2025 07:05:00 +0000

Big in episode 1, season 1 of SATC

Why did Big reject Samantha in episode 1?

I believe this is not a new topic to be discussed/written. My naïvete hampered me from thinking too bold, lol. This is triggered one fact: despite the fact that Samantha is very inspiring for me; I am more like Carrie than Samantha who is bold, highly confident, successful. Carrie is not as bold or 'up-to-date' as Samantha, although once Aidan said to Carrie, "you are anything but conventional, Carrie."

One time I read somewhere about Chris Noth's comment on his character Big: "Big is not shown to have many girlfriends. It is different from Carrie who has some (or many?) boyfriends in the serials of Sex and the City. After getting divorced from Samantha, he didn't have any other girlfriend, except sometimes pursuing Carrie."

However, a lot of people see Big a player, just like Samantha. And because Big is a successful entrepeneur, he is quite popular in many business communities, and so is Samantha who is well-known as successful PR. If Big accepts Samantha's flirtatious invitation in episode 1, his business associates will easily find out about it. It can threaten his business.

Big may find Samantha intimidating (with her boldness to invite him to bed) because Big would rather choose to be with a woman who is 'under his control' but at the same time 'easy to be taken into his bed'. After Big and Carrie have their relationship, and Big finds out that Carrie is not 'that easy' to control, he chooses to marry Natasha, a kinda 'classic' woman: young, gorgeous, not that smart (meaning easily to be manipulated), and submissive. Here, we can say that Big belongs to a type of man who is also classic. He views women who are smart, independent and successful (in career + money) as threat.

There are many men who have trait like Big in Indonesia! They don't have guts to face smart, independent and successful women because these woman are not easily manipulated. Isn't there any man who is on the way around? I believe there are but I haven't found them yet in my real life. I am not Samantha. This is why. Lol.

PT56 14.00 03 November 2025

P.S.:

perhaps you consider visiting this link? 😀

Sex is (not) love

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Fri, 15 Aug 2025 08:18:00 +0000

This meme has been viralized for years. I believe you have seen this before. I believe it is a good thing to teach our youngsters about this: sex is not love; dating is not love. So, those youngsters will not confuse sex/dating with love.

However, do you agree if I say that sex/lovemaking can be one form of showing deep devotion to the one we love? When we are deeply in love with someone, don't you think it is very understandable that we want to make love to him/her to show how much we want to give pleasure to our loved one? Are you familiar with a statement, "let us consummate our love!" for lovers who happen to live in two distant places, and when they meet, they want to perfect their love by making love?

So? to some extent, sex or lovemaking is also love.

MS48 15.18 15 August 2025

How (un)sexual are you?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Wed, 13 Aug 2025 07:17:00 +0000

Samantha and Siddharta

In the DROUGHT, episode 11 from season 1 Sex and the City, Carrie said that New York is about sex; people getting it, people trying to get it, and people who can't get it. In this episode, each main character has their own sex problems: (1) Carrie stopped having sex with her 'perfect' boyfriend after she accidentally farted in front of Big. (and the trigger she farted was that she felt too comfortable in their relationship!) (2) when Carrie didn't have sex with Big for 3 days in a row, Miranda didn't have sex at all for three months. This seemingly trivial problem made them quarrel a bit. Farting was something human so it was okay for Carrie to fart; this is Miranda's opinion. On the other hand, Carrie considered it a big problem because after she farted, Big seemed to lose his interest to have sex with Carrie.

"Not doing it when you are with someone means much more than not doing it when you are not with someone."

Then two of them continued talking about it, till Carrie asked, "is it normal to be in the same bed and not do it?"

Miranda responded, "it depends on what is normal for you." everybody has his/her own opinion/measurement what is normal, for sure; or how many times someone has sex in a day / a week / a month; or how long someone can stand not having it.

To entertain herself, Miranda rented some videos at Blockbuster to watch. Coincidentally, somewhere near Blockbuster, there were some guys working on the street catcalled Miranda. They seemed to know that Miranda was entertaining herself in order not to think about sex all the time. However, when Miranda responded to those man, they retreated. One of them, "Relax, lady. I am married." This made Miranda mock them 😁

Samantha -- who seemed to avoid having one steady partner to have sex -- was trying to seduce Siddharta, her yoga instructor. Unfortunately, instead of following Samantha's sexual need, Siddharta even taught her how to control her libido. Siddharta claimed that he used to be fond of sex too until he thought that his need of sex was a problem (he said it was all just ego.) so he started practicing celibacy. Interestingly, Samantha was interested in practicing it, though it was hard. (Can we interpret it that to some extent, Samantha agrred with Siddharta that having high sexual drive is sometimes troublesome?)

After a few days, Samantha eventually could not control herself. She invited one man in her yoga class to have sex. She did it in front of Siddharta. When seeing Samantha and that man left his yoga class, Siddharta was dumbfounded, his face was sweating.

Charlotte got a new boyfriend in this episode. Without her knowing, Kevin used to go out with Carrie. Carrie dumped him because he was a sex maniac. Nevertheless, with Charlotte, Kevin was a different person. He was no longer sex maniac. Realizing that his sexual drive put him in trouble, Kevin consumed prozac. He thought in a relationship, sex was not important, more important was how a man treated his woman with kindness. Unfortunately, this even made Charlotte decide to dump him.

See? Women also need sex in a relationship.

*******

When watching this episode for the first time several years ago, innocently I thought it would only happen in western countries, lol. However, recently, a good friend of mine once in a while tells me about her coach in the fitness center where she is a member. This coach is really addicted to sex. Interestingly, instead of having one steady sex partner, just like Samantha, she likes doing it with someone whom she happens to meet somewhere, for example when going traveling to Bali, let's say. Or sometimes she looks for dates online. Sounds very westernized, doesn't it? 🤪 or am I just outdated now? 🫢😑🤪

It reminded me of my discussion with some students of mine long time ago. Some male students said that no matter how much they needed sex, they were scared of sexually transmitted diseases. This stopped them from being promiscuous.

MS48 14.09 13 August 2025

Opinion

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Fri, 18 Jul 2025 13:16:00 +0000

the pic was taken from here

"The belief that one's own view of reality is the only reality is the most dangerous of all delusions." ~ Paul Watzlawick ~

Reading the above-mentioned quote, I remember one short scene in SATC. In the scene, Carrie was together with Aleksander, one boyfriend of hers in the season 6. they were with Aleksander's workmates. One topic they discussed was their hostility towards people's opinion on something. When they asked Carrie, she responded, "I cannot answer that question because I am a writer where in my writings, I depend on people's opinion."

In this era, one view of (the so-called) reality can be, in fact, just an opinion or assumption. And Carrie's response struck me. Most writings of mine are based on opinion, even worse perhaps just based one assumption. This is why recently I have reduced my time to write for blogs. Perhaps it will be better if I 'hide' my opinion or assumption behind fiction. And I am not good at all to write fiction.

PT56 20.10 18 July 2025

Recent views

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Sat, 05 Jul 2025 16:00:00 +0000

As far as I am concerned, these past few weeks, there has been a very high increase of people visiting 2 blogs of mine, www.afeministblog.blogspot.com and www.nannasimplelife.com

And most of them come from Brazil. I am wondering if they 'stumble' to my blogs because of looking for information about Juliana Marins, one tourist from Brazil who accidentally fell on her trekking in Rinjani mountain, Lombok. Hmmm ...

Whilecin fact, I don't write anything at all about that accident.

UPY 23.00 05 July 2025

Toxic parents

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Wed, 11 Sep 2024 06:35:00 +0000

In my previous writing, I wrote my own experience, that in my opinion, mothers love their children unconditionally, no matter what happens, a mother will always support her child. In Bahasa Indonesia, there is a proverb: "Kasih ibu sepanjang jalan, kasih anak sepanjang galah." or "A mother's love is as long as a road while a child's love is as long as a pole". In other words we can say a mother's love is timeless while a child's love is limited.

Is it always like this?

*******

Not long after Angie graduated from college in 2015, she got a job, as a content writer. Although the job was not in accordance with her educational background, I supported her to take it. I coincidentally just lost a job back then. Therefore, with her working and her own earning, I didn't need to give her pocket money anymore. I felt it was high time for her to learn to be responsible with her need.

Shockingly, one day Angie told me that one of her workmates -- a girl in her late teenage -- told Angie that she had to give more than 50% of her pay to her parents. As the first child, her parents taught her to be responsible to help make their ends meet. She graduated only from high school since her parents didn't have money to send her to college. She didn't complain. She thought that her parents had right to ask her to do that. Moreover her parents cited some verses from the holy Book that children were supposed to be indebted toward their parents to live in this world.

I believe that this workmate of Angie's is not the only one who shares the same idea: children must love their parents unconditionally by, let's say, giving the parents their pay after getting a job. I often read some statuses on social medias about toxic parents who treat their children as source of income. Worse than that, some toxic parents even ask the less loved kid to financially fulfill the other siblings' need.

Here is one sample showing that a mother can be toxic while the daughter even loves the mother unconditionally. I am of opinion that this kinda thing happens because the parents 'teach' their children like what I wrote above: "the holy Book instructs the children to love their parents unconditionally because without their parents, they will never exist in this world."

I screenshot it from 'threads'

PT56 13.27 11/09/2024

A mother's love versus a daughter's love

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Thu, 05 Sep 2024 12:52:00 +0000

4 September 2022, at Gumuk Reco, Banyubiru, Ambarawa

When I knew that Mom was on her final days in this world, every day I was full of worry and anxiety. And of course I kept hoping that Mom would have longer life than what I was worried about. I could not figure out why I felt that way. What was I afraid of when I had to go on living without Mom?

As long as I remember, Mom raised her kids in a traditional way: "I know better than you do because I am your Mom; I am older than you so I know things better." This made me feel unsure to start talking about some personal matters openly. In this case, especially, is my 'converting' from being a religious Muslim to being an agnostic. I was not sure if she would accept my explanation; therefore when she scolded me because I didn't do any ritual pray, I kept quiet. Some blog friends advised me to talk about it with Mom openly, who knows then she would understand, but I chose to be quiet.

One time, Mom was really angry with me, perhaps because I never responded her interrogation about my stopping doing the rituals, I came to think that perhaps she would ask me to leave the house. I already said to Angie about this possibility, and she was ready to be with me.

(FYI, Angie and I never get involved to talk about our spiritual belief. Nevertheless, we both don't do religious rituals.)

In fact, Mom never asked me to leave the house, till she passed away. I am of opinion that despite the fact she used to scold me, she loved me unconditionally. No matter what I had done back then, she accepted me just the way I was.

After she was gone, I realized how brave, strong and tough Mom was, not to mention loving to her children. She was still 18 years old when marrying Dad, and he brought her to Semarang, a town located very far from her hometown, Gorontalo. (Dad is from Gorontalo too.) Both Mom and Dad did not have any relatives living in Semarang.

27 years after their marriage, Dad passed away, his body was buried in Semarang. This made Mom insist to stay in Semarang when her brother and sisters in Gorontalo asked her to go back to her hometown at that time. "In order to visit Dad's graveyard easily now and then" and I believe Mom chose this also in order that she didn't give a cultural shock to her four children, in case we moved to Gorontalo.

After Mom passed away, I came to think how her life perhaps would be easier if she moved back to Gorontalo, her siblings as well as her other relatives could be her shoulder to cry on when she needed one. This is why I thought that the decision to go on living in Semarang was for her children too.

I am of opinion that Mom belonged to a type of person who didn't think it was necessary to utter love to her children. She even was not accustomed to calling her children with loving nick, as I always call Angie, "honey …" But I know she loves her children unconditionally. Even though the way she raised me made me see her as an 'invincible' woman with whom I am not supposed to debate. In return, I cannot show her my love for her openly either.

*******

On facebook, I have a 'friend' who once a while writes about her relationship with her mom. Her mom belongs to the conventional type, that once in a while triggers conflict between my friend and her mom. When reading her statuses about her mom, I assume that her mom is more conventional than my Mom. For example, after my friend's daughter graduated from college, her mother spontaneously asked her to marry off her daughter. She believes that it the 'normal' step of a human being. My Mom was not like that at all. When she passed away, my younger sister was 47 years old, still single, and Mom accepted it, no grumpy utterances whatsoever.

On the other hand, in fact, I was more 'courageous' to face Mom than that friend of mine. For example, when I was a teenager, I already had an experience to go hiking/trekking, to ride my own motorcycle, one thing that she was not allowed to do by her mom, and she just obeyed her mom. While in fact, I already felt not 'that' free, let's say, Mom never allowed me to go out of town with my classmate, although we would go with her parents. Mom never allowed me to go camping although it was a school's activity.

I believe the way our mothers loved their daughters was different. My friend's mother was too worried if something wrong happened so she didn't have experiences like going hiking or riding motorcycle during her teenage years (including when she was in college). My mom was a bit like that, but she still let me go hiking and riding motorcycle.

The difference was I never had a heart to speak up to Mom, especially talking about my spiritual belief. This friend of mine, finally, had courage to confront her mom after she reached the age of fifty something, without feeling guilty.

Meanwhile, around 2 years ago, Angie told me that one good friend of hers was expelled from her house by her mother because the mother thought the daughter didn't want to listen to her, such as to save her income, such a trivial thing (for me) to ask a daughter to go out of the house. Angie's friend belongs to the Gen Z, who is accustomed to talking openly about anything, while her mother -- the Gen X -- could not accept that. Angie's friend left the house and lived in a boarding house.

Around 15 years ago, I also had a workmate who was expelled by her mother from home because of the quarrel between her parents, and my workmate was on her father's side! And this happened to her several times. (when this workmate of mine quarreled with her mother, she was expelled from home. Several months later, she went back home, when her mother was no longer angry. But then this happened again and again.)

As far as I remember, Angie and I never have such a fight that makes us stay away from each other. And I never understand how a mother can ask her child to leave the house for something trivial like that.

From some cases above, I cannot say that in general mothers love their children unconditionally.

------------------------

Several days after Mom passed away, I read Angie's blog about her grandma's passing. She gave it a title, "The sun in my family was gone." (Now I am wondering if she chose 'the sun' to describe her grandma because I labeled her as my lovely STAR? If she is a star, her grandma is the sun.) There she wrote about a wish she used to have when she was younger.

"I had a wish that I never wanted to experience someone dear in the family passes away. If I can choose, I want to do it first so that I don't need to feel the deep sorrow of being left."

This shocked me!

I don't think I can accept this! I want everything to run 'normally' in my life: those who pass (first) are those who are older than the others. Not only can I not accept it, but I also don't want to think about it. Let me die first. But I don't wanna leave Angie now or in the near future. Angie is still single and young. When Mom passed away, I was 51 years old and I have already had Angie, and until now I still sometimes shed tears when remembering Mom (I don't think I loved her enough back then.) I want, at least, Angie to have a loving and loved soul mate first, then has child who will comfort her from her sorrow. In my humble opinion, she needs a reliable shoulder to cry on. Although in my dictionary, I believe that no child is ready to be left by his/her loving/loved parent(s), especially a mother.

PT56 - MS48 05 September 2024

Is Death Scary?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 23 Jul 2024 09:43:00 +0000

One topic which is interesting to discuss in class -- when there is a chance for random topics -- is this: death is scary.

I often find students who agree with this statement: "death is scary". I figure out that most of them who agree with this are those who adhere with Islam as their religion. As someone who used to study Islam teachings since I started going to elementary school until I reached the age of 35 when I started learning about feminism, I completely understand why. Many people are afraid of death because of the threat of torture in hell when they lack of good deeds when living on this Earth. And as far as I know, most people feel not ready to die because of lacking these deeds.

Many students mention exactly like what I have in mind.

I have written in my previous writings that my transformation from a (secular) Muslim to be agnostic (I was also somewhat influenced by Buddhism's teaching) made me view death as no longer an entrance to either hell or heaven. I believe in hell or heaven no more. I may still believe in the existence God (you may see me as either Agnostic or Deist then) but of course I view God differently from what most Muslim people do. Death is only someone's experience to move from one dimension of life to another dimension of life.

When hearing my explanation above, many students of mine were in awe. I could see from their facial expression. "How could Ms. Nana easily say that?" Then they thought that I never know Islam teaching. :)

One week ago, I happened to talk about this topic with a new student of mine. Surprisingly, she shared similar view with me: she is not scared of death. One thing she is worried is if her death will make people close to her feel sad. This really made two of us! Isn't it very interesting? Nevertheless, there is another more painful thing related to death though, for me: if someone very dear to me has to move to another dimension when I am still alive.

PT56 16.30 23 July 2024

P.S.:

The phrase "that makes two of us" is an idiomatic expression used to indicate agreement with someone else's statement or feeling

He is just not into me

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 18 Jun 2024 00:49:00 +0000

I copied the following article from this link.

Bibi Lynch

A moment that changed me: I’m 58 and single since 1997. A Sex and the City meme transformed my life

My first and only proper relationship ended the day after Princess Diana died. There followed years of dalliances and situationships, before I realized something crucial about myself

Bibi Lynch

Wed 12 Jun 2024 07.00 BST Last modified on Wed 12 Jun 2024 13.12 BST

Sometimes a meme can change your life. OK, your love life, let’s not get Carrie’d away. It was about 3am; I was in bed with two empty Gü Zillionaire ramekins and my favourite hot-water bottle (yes, I have a favourite), and zombie-scrolling TikTok. A Sex and the City clip appeared. The one that says: “He’s just not that into you.”

I’d obviously seen it before, years ago when the show came out, but I hadn’t seen it since. So I didn’t swipe. I watched – for old times’ sake. And it blew my mind. You remember? Miranda is telling Carrie and Charlotte about her previous night’s almost-encounter: asking for their theories about a date who “didn’t come up” because he said he had an early meeting.

While Carrie and Charlotte suggest he’s still interested “but wants to take it slow”, Carrie’s then-boyfriend, tasty Berger is having none of it: “Not going to sugar-coat it for you: he’s just not that into you.” Carrie squeals. Charlotte gasps. I stopped licking the Gü pot. And just like that … it all made sense.

I knew this line, so why hadn’t I “got” it before? It would’ve made things so much easier, because my personal life has been a disaster. I’m 58 and have only had one boyfriend – for four years from the age of 27 – and that relationship ended the day after Diana, Princess of Wales died. My other dalliances have been one-night stands, three-month collapses and very many infatuations and situationships in between.

There’s been no love affair since 1997, no second date since 2017. My last “potential” romance spent our only rendezvous looking over my shoulder and smiling at the younger, prettier woman behind me – and I was obsessed with him. Well, with my version of him. When you don’t really know someone it’s so easy to project on to and invest in a person. The internet makes it so easy to find out just enough that you can decide who you think they are.

This one was a lovebomber; he would leave me voice notes and send me cute videos, then end up breadcrumbing and ghosting me. Oh, the time I spent, like Miranda, deciphering mixed messages and analyzing why we weren’t happening. He was scared of getting hurt, I reasoned; he was overwhelmed by his feelings towards me; he was certain we were soulmates and wanted to make sure he was in the right emotional state for me because he couldn’t mess this one up.

Of course, none of the above was true. He just wasn’t that into me. None of them had been. There was the ex who told me: “I like seeing you but I never feel sad when you leave.” Which my brain interpreted as: “We’re slowly building strong foundations. How fabulous.” And the bloke who informed me: “You know this isn’t a relationship, don’t you?”

I wasted years analyzing and making excuses for these men, when I should have spent time analyzing myself: because I was the problem here – I was the one attracting men who didn’t want to commit because I didn’t want to commit. Not deep down. It was too dangerous (traumatizing relationship role models will do that to you). Not only did I not want to commit, I actually felt safe in that high-octane starting stage of a relationship, because those heightened emotions were familiar to me from my childhood. He’s just not that into me? I’m just not that into me.

But not any more. Now I’m ready: ready to sort out my baggage with my therapist and ready to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to my dates. A man says we must meet but never makes an actual plan? He’s just not that into me. A bloke takes three days to reply to a message, and when he does he hearts it? He can jog on. One crush views all my Insta Stories but that’s the beginning and end of the attention? No more ringing my poor friend Em to ask her if he’s into me. He’s not. I know that now.

This freed-up brain space is a joy. As Miranda says to Carrie and Charlotte: “It is the most liberating thing I’ve ever heard.” Time is running out and if I want to find my person I have to learn how to commit; how to fall in love. I have to unlearn all my adult behaviour. The thought is actually as exciting as it is daunting. I might finally meet someone. Can you imagine? Perhaps I need another TV show meme to help me on my journey. Nothing from EastEnders, please.

Why getting married? (3)

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 11 Jun 2024 06:50:00 +0000

the pic was taken from this link

Around a year ago, one loved of mine was asked by one good friend of hers to accompany her to 'escape' to another town for two days. Let's call her 'Y'. Y needed to 'run away' to avoid a wedding invitation: her ex married another woman! She felt cheated because she and her ex just broke up, then she got that invitation. Her 'reading' was: her ex-boyfriend dated two girls at the same time. When Y refused his marriage proposal, he decided to marry the other one.

Just a few days ago, my loved one told me another story, still related to Y. Y met her college friend, let's call him X. X clearly seemed to try his best to get close to Y. And last weekend, X asked Y out, where X gave her a quite expensive gift, while saying something like he wanted to get married in the near future now that his parents are getting old and X thought the parents need a daughter-in-law to take care of them. How about X? X works out of Java island, quite far from where his parents live.

There!

I just came to another 'conclusion': I need to add another reason why people get married: to take care of parents. Oh, perhaps I can still add another one: the parents already want to have grandchildren. These two reasons are very typical Indonesian culture, I presume! This reminded me of one quite popular singer in Indonesia: Denny Caknan wanted to get married as soon as possible (his ex-girlfriend seemed to refuse his marriage proposal) now that his parents really want to have grandchildren. Therefore, Denny married another girl.

Let's wait for the next news: will Y accept X's proposal to take care of X's parents. My loved one said that Y told her, "Did he think only his parents need to be taken care of? Didn't he think I also want to take care of my own parents in their old age?"

PT56 13.37 11/06/2024

P.S.:

Y refused her (last year) boyfriend's proposal because she knew that in fact the ulterior motive of that man to marry her was to take care of his parents.

Why getting married (2) can be viewed here.

Why getting married can be viewed here

Israel versus Palestina

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Thu, 30 May 2024 08:18:00 +0000

Honestly speaking, I am not that into this topic. One beloved of mine seems very interested in this though. Once he asked me whether I had anything to say about this, but at that time both of us were still very busy with our daily activities. We didn't talk about it at that time. And until now, we never talk about this.

And yesterday I saw this kinda picture on his WA story.

One thing that I know, this case is not about religion, is it? It is about two countries fighting over an area. Who has right? Who doesn't have right? It is a very long long story! And, once again, I am not really into this. The leaders of those countries choose to continue fighting, they don't care about their own people's safety, moreover their future.

We, Indonesian, still have so many things to handle and cover. We ourselves still have so much homework to do to reach Pak Jokowi's dream: Indonesia Emas 2045. Let our leaders decide what to do when talking about the fight between Israel and Palestina. Meanwhile, we, Indonesian citizens, keep going on living together peacefully.

Let us hand in hand to make our dream come true.

PT56 15.05 30/05/2024

Racial Discrimination

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Thu, 30 May 2024 07:34:00 +0000

It is the same old story, I presume, although perhaps we can say that nowadays the situation is getting better -- fairer -- for all races: the Native American, the African American, the Chinese, etc.

Just recently I have watched 2 short clips in social medias about the judgmental behavior towards the Native American and the African American. It is clearly seen that the hostile judgment was triggered by different skins. One short clip described how a store manager accused one (prospective) customer to do shoplifting, only because she was Native American.

This reminded me of one ex-student of mine. 17 years ago he migrated to the US to get a better living. I once asked him how he did that. He didn't want to explain about it. He just said, "It is very hard to live here, Miss. I don't think you can do this." while in fact I just wanted to know his experience, not to follow his path. Ha ha … Nevertheless, he made it! I mean, until now he still lives there. A year ago he married one girl from Indonesia, then he brought her to live with him in the US, instead of him going back home to Indonesia.

However, watching those short clips describing racial discrimination in the US, I came to think about him. His life must be very hard. The income he can get is worth his struggle there, I suppose.

PT56 11.24 30/5/2024

Religious Snob

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 28 May 2024 11:24:00 +0000

I copied this article from my blog here. I wrote this 18 years ago and now I wonder why I posted it in that blog, not here. ha ha ...

pic from this site

This is one topic that has been discussed "hotly" for several weeks in one mailing list I join.
Religious snob ...

I must admit that I used to be included in such a "community" because I was indoctrinated like that--that Islam is the only right religion; that embracing Islam will make a group of people better than the rest so that they are the only people who will go to heaven while the rest go go hell, etc.

I didn't use my common sense at that time because of my very young age and also the strong indoctrination given by people I must respect--parents and teachers.

After I used my common sense, and I consider myself to be "awakened" from my long sleep, I found those religious snob very ridiculous.

Naively I thought my "awakening" was closely related to my advancing age.

However, when reading that those joining the mailing list I mentioned above are about the same age as I am, even older, and still they are not "awakened" yet, still consider themselves as the most enlightened, and then underestimate other people who view things from contradictory perspective, I become very sad; even sometimes I feel so broken-hearted.

Recently a workmate and I have had discussed this kind of thing: what will happen to Indonesia when the people easily judge other people bad only because of the different religion and then they impose their being majority to force other people to agree with their opinion--let's say to apply the Sharia regulations (based on Islamic regulation); while our founding fathers like Soekarno and Hatta (the first president and the first vice president) already formulated Indonesia as a country based on PANCASILA (five principles) that accommodate different religions and encouraged the conducive situation among different religions. Isn't that much lovelier to understand other people? So that they understand us?

Age really doesn't guarantee that someone is wise.

July 4, 2006

Why getting married?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Mon, 27 May 2024 10:16:00 +0000

In episode 15 season 4, Sex and the City, Carrie asked her 3 friends: "Why do we even have to get married? Give me one good reason, aside that no wants to die alone thing."

Charlotte answered: "For me, when it is good, marriage gives me a sense of security."

Carrie responded, "I feel secure in this relationship now. Things are great with us."

Many years ago, when I asked my students why people get married, in Indonesian culture, the first reason is to celebrate sex (legally, both in the country law and in the religion law). In Indonesia, on the 'surface' culture, people are not supposed to have sex before they get married, although of course, in sub-culture, sex outside wedlock is acceptable. (Am I right? Or not yet?)

Related to my post here, from some reasons I mentioned why people get married (in Indonesia), where is 'security' positioned? ('security' as Charlotte mentioned.) But, perhaps, first, we need to find out how Charlotte defined security here. Is it

Financial security; when the couple get divorced, the wife will get some money from the husband, or on the way around
Social security; people know that the couple are married. This is somewhat important in Indonesia now that many hotels ask for a copy of marriage certificate when a couple want to stay a night
Another social security: when a married woman gets pregnant, people will not judge her as a bit*h because she is married, she is legal to have sex, therefore it is accepted when she is pregnant

Well, in my opinion, with the shrink of the world (due to internet technology) Indonesian culture -- in this case is getting married -- is still far cry from Western culture. Carrie felt secure in her relationship with Aidan without getting married, from Carrie's point. On the contrary, Aidan felt insecure if he didn't 'tie' Carrie in a marriage bond; in their previous relationship, Carrie cheated on him with Big. Therefore, he really wanted to marry Carrie while (he thought that) Carrie was still head-over-heels in love with him.

In fact, marriage does not guarantee that someone will not cheat on his/her partner, anyway. Marriage is as fragile as boyfriend/girlfriend relationship.

Don’t you think?

PT56 13.48 27/05/2024

Friendship

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Thu, 16 May 2024 12:29:00 +0000

Since the first time I watched serials SEX AND THE CITY, I have been amazed by the friendship of the four main characters: Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte. And I was imagining if only I had some good friends with whom I would once in a while 'sacrifice' my me-time to be with them, in the name of 'friendship'.

However, then I thought, that was just serials on television.

Until I finished reading IS THERE STILL SEX IN THE CITY. And today I read one review about the book, (in this link ) The last paragraph was as follows:

In answer to the title question, Bushnell has decamped to the Hamptons, where she relishes planting vegetables, staying in and hula-hooping. These are the bonus years, Bushnell says, an opportunity to reinvigorate and reap the benefits of self-knowledge. Her own Charlotte, Miranda, and Samantha have also moved into the neighborhood, proof of her enduring thesis that friendship is life's greatest love story.

In my younger years, when I was still teaching in one university in my hometown, I had some good friends with whom I used to confide in about anything. Until I had to leave that workplace. And I could not make new friends somewhere else.

Recently, when seeing Angie, my daughter sometimes go hanging out with some workmates of hers, I remember my time 25 years ago. I seldom went hanging out with my workmates -- at that time I already had Angie while my other (female) workmates were still single. Then after some of them got married, they were busy with their kids. (No 'story' about 'leaving the kids behind' when the time to spend together with the friends came, just like what we can see in serials SEX AND THE CITY.) Nevertheless, perhaps Angie will also undergo what I experienced more than 20 years ago: after some people get married, then everybody will be busy with their family.

I do wanna know if there is friendship like the one we see in SEX AND THE CITY in Indonesia.

MS48 18.32 16/05/2024

Reality versus TV serials

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 03 Oct 2023 07:49:00 +0000

I am excited when finding out some people's opinions about Carrie Bradshaw's life: Carrie's lifestyle is somewhat impossible to happen in New York. Carrie works 'just' as a columnist in one newspaper, yet, the serials show her extravagant lifestyle: e.g. going everywhere by taxi -- instead of taking subway which is cheaper -- not to mention her hobby to collect branded shoes.

And today, I just found another article containing someone's opinion about Gilmore Girls, especially Lorelai's capability to stand by herself:

"how Lorelai managed to only work one job, pay a mortgage, provide for her daughter, and always eat takeout?"

I watched GG for the first time around 16 years ago, and I really admired Lorelai who showed her financial stability despite the fact that she raised Rory by herself, separated herself from her wealthy parents in order that her parents wouldn't interfere her way of raising her only daughter. As a single parent, Lorelai was my role model, besides her amazing relationship with Rory. I somewhat blamed myself for not being able to be really financially established while in fact I had 2 (sometimes more) jobs. Back then.

Well, serials are just too perfect to happen in ordinary people's lives, aren't they?

I am being amused, by myself, when writing this, lol.

PT56 14.43 03.10.2023

Absolute Truth?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Wed, 27 Sep 2023 05:23:00 +0000

In my humble opinion, everything can be viewed from more than one point of view. In one discussion with a loved one of mine, I like saying, "it depends bla bla bla."

He: "are you sure there is no truth in whatsoever?"

I: "in my humble opinion, there is no absolute truth in religion."

He: "how about in other than religion?"

I: "such as?"

He: "what do you think about 'killing'?"

When hearing that word, I automatically remembered one case called "honor killing"; one case that left me in horror. More than 20 years ago, I talked about this with someone living in the US, online, the first time I knew there was such a horrible disgrace. He condemned this for sure. This kinda 'killing' absolutely can be viewed from minimally two sides: first from the family who think that one member of the family has done something very shameful, therefore they think they have right to kill the one who has done shameful thing; such as a girl having sex with her boyfriend, in order to keep the family's dignity. Second, from those who think that the girl 'just' has sex with her boyfriend to show some love.

In this case, the so-called honor killing can be justified if it happens in some certain countries (especially Islamic countries) , or even in some certain family, although perhaps the family lives in a western country, such as the US. The family will think that other people do not have right to interfere the family's decision. They believe that the dignity of the family should be prioritized more than just a disgraceful daughter.

However, my loved one in fact gave another example (which is even easier to digest): "I am terribly poor, my kids need money to go to school. I think I'll kill my neighbor to grab his belongings."

Well, of course in such a case, the killer is wrong. He should have done his best to look for a job, to get money to support the family, not 'just' to take that impossible step: killing the neighbor. Although of course when someone is dying due to hunger, and he/she lives in a community, isn't it the responsibility of the community to take care of the hungry neighbor who lives in poverty? But killing a neighbor to take the belongings is absolutely wrong all the time. Killing is acceptable only when someone accidentally does that when defending himself/herself.

Another case he gave was: some years ago when some members of FPI forced to close down food stalls that were open during Ramadan month. They did not only close down the stalls, they also sometimes took the food and threw them away plus beat the diners. If we view this using FPI's point of view, the act was supposed to be acceptable because FPI did it in order to make people respect Islamic teachings.

In the world of 'it depends bla bla bla', my loved one thinks that we cannot force other people to accept our way of thinking whatever it takes. Therefore, the idea 'it depends' is dangerous.

On the contrary, I am of opinion that whatever we think, we are not allowed to make other people in harmful situation. Because of thinking 'it depends' does not necessarily mean we tolerate crime. Closing down food stalls, throwing away edible food, and beating people are included into crime. Killing other people is always a crime, even in a case such as honor killing, except as I wrote above: when someone kills another accidentally when defending himself/herself.

Furthermore, my loved one cited what Bertrand Russel said:

To summarize: Our decisions must be made on truth; not wishful thinking, and we need to learn to be tolerant of people whom we disagree with or we will end up destroying one another. It’s simple advice, but it bears repeating. (I cited it from this link)

Talking about 'truth', I remember around a decade ago, I discussed 'truth' in 'Religion' class. Truth can be divided into five categories:

Aesthetic truth
Historical truth
Moral truth
Scientific truth
Religious/spiritual truth

He asked, "are those 5 truths all not absolute?"

He then said history is said to be written by the winner. However, later on, when the winner becomes culprit, the history then changes. In Indonesia, the case of '30 September 1965 PKI', was Suharto really a hero? And Sukarno a culprit? When the New Order regime collapsed, people view 30 September 1965 differently.

Scientific truth also can change during the course of time. Remember long time ago people thought that the Earth was the center of the universe? When I was a little, my teacher taught me that atom was the smallest particle. You may look for other examples by yourself.

While aesthetic/moral/religious truth must be very flexible, it depends on whose point of view.

PT56 12.12 27.09.2023

Men from Mars, women from Venus?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 19 Sep 2023 13:38:00 +0000

Men from Mars, women from Venus?

I just watched (again) Sex and the City episode 7 from season 2; the title is "The Chicken Dance". In short, the episode tells us about Carrie who gets fed up with Big's inability to pay attention to her; Miranda inadvertently sets her interior designer up with a long-distance would-be boyfriend, and they marry after only four weeks. Charlotte has a "warp speed" relationship with a guy she meets at the wedding. Samantha is upset when she experiences "déjà-screw": sleeping with a guy she previously did fifteen years ago.

I want to focus on Carrie's case. At Jeremy's wedding (Jeremy was an old 'friend' of Miranda who moved back to New York after living in London for some time. During their communication via emails, both of them were flirtatious, therefore, Miranda expected that they would eventually become couple. However, after Jeremy came to NY, he even fell in love with a woman who decorated Miranda's new apartment, and proposed her to marry him only after four weeks.), Big agreed to accompany Carrie to attend it, one thing that made Carrie very excited. Especially because Big wanted to hear Carrie reading love poem for the bride and the groom. Unfortunately, Big didn't want to sign the card inserted in the wedding gift. Moreover when Big even left the wedding venue when Carrie was reading the poem, because he got an important business call.

Before writing this, while browsing some info, I found an article where Chris North said:

"Big was what he was. One of the things I tell people is that he never tried to pretend he was anything other than what he was. It was [Carrie] who tried to pretend he was something he wasn’t,”

“He was always honest about himself — he never cheated on her. The relationship just didn’t work, and he went on to get married while she went on to — how many boyfriends did she have?"

Well, Big didn't cheat on Carrie, but he cheated Natasha. If he did love Carrie, why didn't he marry her? Instead of marrying Natasha but then cheated her?

As a woman, I understood what Carrie wanted from Big, she wanted people to know that she and Big were couple so she asked Big to sign the card. (what's wrong with that?) And because Big liked teasing Carrie when she took time writing the poem, why didn't he postpone answering the business call?

One loved one of mine sometimes teases me by saying, " For men, it is really difficult to understand a woman," and I think it also happens on the way around, it is not easy for women to understand a man. When you are busy, just tell what makes you busy and don't leave your loved one in the dark. It is as simple as that.

MS48 20.25 19.09.2023

You perhaps will find the synopsis helpful.

Embracing Differences

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Tue, 19 Sep 2023 10:55:00 +0000

At the moment I am proctoring a written test. There are 13 students, 4 boys, 9 girls. From the 9 girls, there is one girl wearing senior high school uniform, short sleeves and no headdress (read => jilbab). I took a glance at the badge of her uniform: one well-known state high school.

And just like that I missed the old days when I was teaching at a school where there was no one wearing headdress; no students no employees (teachers as well as administration staff). Well, there was a certain academic year when there were a group of international students -- from Libya -- who came to Semarang to study there. The girls were wearing jilbab. But they didn't stay long. Their fathers moved to another city, so the children followed to move out of town.

Very rarely have I had female students who come to the English course where I teach does not wear jilbab recently, either they are still high school students or college students or employees. Especially high school students, because I have often heard that there is somewhat repression from the environment for Muslim female students who choose not to wear jilbab when going to school.

When Angie went to school, there was no such repression (yet). Angie and many other Muslim female students who studied English in my workplace didn't wear jilbab. She graduated from high school in 2009. In that year, there was still strong debate about RUU APP. After graduating from college, and Angie had somewhat 'reunion' with her old schoolmates, she in fact became the only Muslim mate who chose not to wear jilbab. Did she get any repression from her old mates? She once told me, "X said that she saw me no longer a Muslim." Another said, "Are you sure Ngie, you will stay not wearing jilbab?" Nevertheless, she didn't take it to her heart. She took it easy.

*****

Some weeks ago a biking buddy and I had a conversation. He mentioned some old biking buddies of ours who used to wear no jilbab but now they are wearing one. He said something cynical about it. So I told him, "Let us respect what they choose to wear. It is because I want them to respect others' choice not to wear jilbab too. Respecting each other is what we had better do, let's embrace differences, and no need to be nosy.

MS48 17.49 19.09.2023

Second Puberty 2

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Mon, 18 Sep 2023 11:01:00 +0000

This morning I accidentally stumbled to this old post of mine. I wrote it 17 years ago and I was less than 40 years. Still very young, I suppose, lol. In this writing of mine, I would write what I questioned myself back then.

By the way, when browsing pictures of 'second puberty' to be inserted in that post, I came to this link, and I was interested in the article. It says that people may start having their second puberty at 20s. They may experience psychological and emotional changes, reach the peak of their bone mass and muscle strength. Second puberty at 30s will make people undergo bone and muscle strength decrease, and less fertile than when they are at 20s. People of 40 years of age and above will get natural aging process.

This is interesting because I even think that I reached the peak of my bone mass and muscle strength in my mid 30s when I was diligent to do workout -- I did some jogging too when I was at my 20s but no swimming or workout at gym yet -- I joined one fitness center where I did my workout regularly every day.

When reaching the age of 40s, my health was also at my peak, so I thought, because I did a lot of biking. As far as I remember I started feeling degeneration in my body when nearing 50s. This makes sense, do you agree?

Now, going back to what I wrote in my old post.

Well, the term 'second puberty' is more popular here in Indonesia than 'midlife crisis' while in fact what I described in that post referred to midlife crisis: people who somewhat lose their confidence that they are good-looking and still attractive to be seen by others.

Luckily (or 'unluckily'?) when I reached the age of 40s, I was already active in social medias besides blogs. As other users, I used the social medias to expose my narcissism, lol, either I posted pictures of writings. Flirting people online was more acceptable than what my ex private students did, as I wrote in the post. Hahahahah …

I am of opinion that midlife crises are kind of psychological problems, whatever the cause is. Psychological problems can be solved by, let's say, confiding in someone (or some ones?) In 2006 -2010 the universe sent someone to my life -- my Abang that I dubbed as my 'Guardian Angel'. I was at the brink of my divorce back then and I had to get away from my ex safely. I really needed someone to talk to, someone who would listen to me whole-heartedly. Besides, as I sometimes write anywhere in my blogs that writing is curing. I write for blogs also in my diary.

MS48 17.56 18.09.2023

Truth & Tolerance: Bertrand Russell’s advice in the modern world

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Sat, 16 Sep 2023 05:52:00 +0000

Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a British philosopher, mathematician, essayist, and recipient of the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950. In addition to being one of the founding fathers of analytical philosophy, “Encyclopaedia Britannica” cites him as a public “campaigner for peace” and activist for many moral, political and social ideas.

In a 1959 interview with BBC, Russell was asked to outline the advice he would give to future generations, and his answer is extremely timely for ours:

I should like to say two things, one intellectual and one moral. The intellectual thing I should want to say to them is this: When you are studying any matter or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. But look only, and solely, at what are the facts.

The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple. I should say love is wise, hatred is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other, we have to learn to put up with the fact that some people say things that we don’t like. We can only live together in that way. And if we are to live together and not die together, we should learn the kind of tolerance which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.

To summarize: Our decisions must be made on truth; not wishful thinking, and we need to learn to be tolerant of people whom we disagree with or we will end up destroying one another. It’s simple advice, but it bears repeating.

Of course, this common-sense approach to truth and tolerance seems out of reach considering the current social climate of the United States. A disturbing amount of messages seen by millions of Americans bear little relationship to scientific, historical or social facts. Take, for example, the unfounded yet widely spread message earlier this year that drinking water could help prevent COVID-19 infections. Even though most people are aware of so-called “fake news,” inaccuracies are so numerous that it becomes nearly impossible to distinguish fact from fiction.

Moreover, the United States is navigating a polarizing political divide which has sparked much intolerance among opposing ideological groups. One only needs to spend a few minutes browsing Reddit forums or YouTube comments to find examples of hate speech. Unfortunately this intolerance spreads beyond the internet as well. It is not uncommon to hear of politicians and common citizens alike labeling others as “deplorables,” “snowflakes” or “racists” and to have some go so far as to commit crimes against those who disagree with them. Facing these circumstances, how can we heed Russell’s advice to discern the truth and tolerate others?

This prescription for humanity is much easier said than done. But we must not give up on truth and tolerance. Because, as Russell mentions, they are “absolutely vital” to society. Adhering to this advice is not a passive process. It requires a daily commitment to open-mindedness, empathy and a willingness to change our thinking in light of new information.

We must be critical of the messages we see on a daily basis, and resist the spread of messages that contain inaccuracies. In order to refine our truth-seeking skills, Sarah Blakeslee, of the University of California’s Chico’s Meriam Library invented the CRAAP test to evaluate sources for credibility. Whenever reading or viewing something, you can remember to fact-check based on Currency (When was the information written and last updated?), Relevance (Who is the intended audience?), Authority (Is the author qualified to write on this topic?), Accuracy (Where does the information/evidence come from?) and Purpose (Is the purpose of the information to inform, teach, sell, entertain or persuade?).

As for learning to be more tolerant, we must try to engage with people that we disagree with. Answers do not come from silencing people who hold views in opposition to our own. We can learn to accept their reality, without having to accept the perceived justification of their views. From this starting point, progress is much more possible. Out of disagreement, as journalist Brian Cronan wrote, “is where the beauty and nuance of human discussion and intellectual progression emerges and blossoms.”

Though the methods which will heal the cultural fragmentation of our society can and should be diverse, there are several key principles which can help to center us during this time of relative turmoil — two of them being Russell’s advice for truth and tolerance.

copied from this link

Man = a cheater?

noreply@blogger.com (Nana Podungge) — Thu, 14 Sep 2023 07:28:00 +0000

Kim Cattral as Samantha Jones

“Men cheat for the same reason that dogs lick their balls—because they can. It's part of their biology.” Samantha Jones, SATC.

Once upon a time, I was just a naïve girl. Then this female friend came into my life. She told me things like what Samantha said to her 3 friends, Carrie, Miranda, and Charlotte. Of course the trigger was not because Carrie, Miranda and Charlotte were as naïve as me, lol. The four friends were talking about 'cheating curve' that there was possibility for everyone to cheat.

Carrie: Well, I think maybe there's a cheating curve. That someone's definition of what constitutes cheating is in direct proportion to how much they themselves want to cheat.

Miranda: That's moral relativism!

Carrie: I prefer to think of it as quantum cheating. I wanted to tell him that I was afraid he could never love me the way I wanted to be loved. I was afraid that maybe he didn't really have the capacity to love anyone but himself. I was afraid that given the chance, he'd break my heart again.

In the episode, they were talking what things could be defined as cheating: for some people, only to flirt with someone else was already categorized into cheating. For some others, perhaps only flirting was just okay, as long as the partner didn't involve physical actions, such as kissing, necking, petting until intercourse.

In that episode, Charlotte caught her (new) date kissing another woman, and he asked for an excuse by saying, "We were just kissing." Miranda then said one of her ex-date who said that fuck*ng was not cheating. In this part, Samantha responded, "Men cheat for the same reason that dog licks their balls."

As someone who was raised in a rigidly religious family, I grew up being naïve and I absolutely never thought of cheating. I, in fact, once considered that sex was something filthy even among married couples. Doing something religious was much more respectful for both parties.

And this friend came to my life, 24 years ago, to tell me, "Trust me mbak, sex is the first thing on men's mind, during day and night! So if you want to keep your husband to stay loyal to you, give him what he wants: sex." (Note: I was married back then.)

Then when I continued my study at American Studies Graduate Program, I got to know Toni Morrison, whose novel -- SULA -- was discussed in one subject. What Morrison illustrated in the novel strengthened what my dear friend said to me, "Men want sex. When they don't get it from their wives, they'll look for it outside." Plus, Morrison seemed to have the same opinion with Samantha too: "Men cheat because they can, it's part of their biology."

Of course I know that not all men are like what Morrison wrote in SULA. At least I have one role model for this: my own dad. (Bless my mom and dad in heaven.) But I think, I sometimes still feel naïve.

PT56 13.59 14.09.2023