The Non Required


Condition des femmes à Schgeumland?
February 5, 2008, 4:43 am
Filed under: etc., Les Amours, Schgeumland

Il y a un mouvement qui se lance sur Internet pour changer la condition de la femme à Schgeumland. Je ne sais pas quoi en penser. En fait, je n’ai pas l’impression que les femmes soient mal loties à Schgeumland. Continue reading



Coming out hétérosexuel
February 2, 2008, 1:59 pm
Filed under: etc., Humour, Les Amours

Je sors de mon silence après la joyeuse lecture d’un post sur l’homosexualité à Schgeumland.

Le post est à mon avis intéressant à plusieurs égards. Aujourd’hui, alors qu’il est de mieux en mieux admis que les homosexuels sont des êtres humains comme les autres, une voix s’élève pour les condamner. Il faut donc reconnaître à son auteur le courage de faire son « coming out » et s’exprimer à haute voix à l’encontre du climat de tolérance général vis-à-vis de l’homosexualité. Le second intérêt du post réside dans le fait qu’il expose clairement un certain nombre d’idées représentant plutôt fidèlement les arguments des anti-homosexuels.

Continue reading



It’s A Man’s Man’s Man’s World
January 9, 2008, 10:17 pm
Filed under: etc., Les Amours

James Brown nous a quitté mais ses chansons restent. James Brown fut le prophète de la soul mais il fut aussi un prophète social à compter de 1966. Rappelons ses paroles prémonitoires:

This is a man’s world
This is a man’s world
But it would be nothing
Nothing without a woman or a girl…

Continue reading



Caption this:
December 1, 2007, 9:37 pm
Filed under: Humour, Les Amours, Nos amis les animaux

I hesitated for a while and was going to name this post “Men”…but instead you get to caption the pictures !

Continue reading



Relationship status
August 18, 2007, 9:16 pm
Filed under: Les Amours

Aaah massive social network…I recently joined one though I never thought I would, but I’m actually pretty happy about it. I like the graphic interface, I like how people identify themselves with their real names, the fact that you can access details only if you’re “friends” and I’m satisfied because I caught up with people I haven’t heard of for more than a decade.

There’s a funny thing when you edit your profile on your “relationship status”. You have the choice between: single, in a relationship, engaged, in an open relationship, married and it’s complicated.

Let me take a guess on what they really mean:

– Single: seeing no one

– Open relationship: you’re dating, but it is not an exclusive relationship

– It’s complicated: I don’t have a guess for this one

– Engaged: you are seeing someone

– Married: you are seeing someone

– In a relationship: you are seeing someone

Why are there 3 options for the same status ? If you are currently seeing someone, the bottom line is “you are not available” (should be, otherwise you’d be in an open relationship). If they convey a level of commitment, faithfulness and/or durability, I personally think it’s nonsense. You can be married and divorce, you can be engaged and never marry, you can be in a relationship and split and in all cases unfaithful whether you’ve been together for 2 months or 10 years. So I would suggest they narrow down the choices to:

  • Single
  • Open relationship
  • It’s complicated and please detail, we want to know !!
  • In a relationship

What do you think ?



3 things I avoid
August 15, 2007, 3:26 pm
Filed under: De quoi tu parles ?, Les Amours, Schgeumland

Famangiana

I’m not arguing about the fact that in times of grief it’s a way of expressing your moral and financial support (and if I were broke, I could definitely use the envelope). I’m not quite sure I get why (depending on how notorious your family is…) people you see every 2 year, total strangers, people you don’t like are queueing at the entrance of your home.

I wouldn’t even expect to see extended family and find boring to observe them while they go through the speech-envelope-kiss/shake hands process with their temporary I’m-sorry-for-your-loss expression. There are millions of people for whom we should have a temporary sad look. My point is these people come because it’s an “adidy” and that, is so devoid of meaning.

I would be glad to only have the people I love, family or not, close friend or 2-min phone calls from those who could not make it. We would eat tasty food, we would reminisce nice moments and maybe cry on each others shoulders. We wouldn’t have to sit all day waiting for acquaintances to show up.

Maariazy

I have issues dealing with the fact that some couples get married with 300 guests and know personally 20 % of them…I always wonder if they enjoy your presence or if you just came to enjoy the food and raucous music ? Inviting 300 guests is like saying “all 600 eyes on me”. I also find the wedding list inappropriate, isn’t that just a polite way of saying “Buy me this !”…how pathetic. But now that I think of it this way, sounds interesting…or what would also be interesting is not to spend all your money (or your parents’) on a party and ring and use it to buy what you want other people to buy !

Famadihana

Playing with the dead. I only have one thing to say: leave the dead alone and care for them when they are alive !!

I don’t always understand malagasy traditions and marriage. I don’t beg to go to these sort of events, but will go – after a lot of complaining – for people I care for (ain’t that nice ?! ). I just hope one day it will be the other way around.

FYI: if there is chocolate cake and if I don’t have to dress up all fancy, you can count on me. Oh and I like custard with my cake ! 🙂



Marriage: love, security …etc
July 12, 2007, 10:58 am
Filed under: Les Amours

I read from a credible source about marriage and it’s initial definition. It is a legal contract and said to be the basis of the family unit and traditionaly it involves:

1) a man who has the duty to provide a safe house, pay for necessities such as food and clothing, and live in the house.

2) a woman who has several obligations: maintaining a home, living in the home, having sexual relations with her husband, and rearing the couple’s children.

The word “traditionaly” is important here because people tend to do certain things by tradition. So if you do and specifically get married for this reason, be sure to fully comply with your role !

Maybe there are other motives for getting married like let’s say you’re in love, you want to start a family, the need to celebrate, or your ring finger is feeling naked. Are those pertinent arguments ? I mean, who needs marriage to celebrate ? Who needs marriage to start a family (you know it’s pretty simple…) ? And the ring…wasted money and the subject fuels so many uninteresting conversations: ” Isn’t it huuuge ?! ” Heyy, I thought that size didn’t matter…

Maybe people think they’ll enjoy a secure and committed relationship by tying the knot. But how in the world can a contract constrain you to stay commited ?

At work you sign a contract but nobody forbids you to look for another hot job. However if your employer has values and principles like hum let’s say “we attract and recruit the finest people in the world. We [promote] and [reward] people without regard to any difference unrelated to performance. We act on the conviction that [you] will always be our most important asset” then perhaps you will feel like staying. An employee might (or not) feel in concrete terms that this strategy is deployed hence stay (or not). Maybe it’s crap or maybe not, but your contract won’t give you the answer.