Here she describes what she thinks makes a "strong female character":
So, a strong female character is...
- Flawed.
- "Maybe not immediately likeable but eventually relateable."
- Not always strong.
You could replace the word feminism with just about anything ... nutrition, government, relationships, making grits ... and it works. Go with the best you have today, but consider it a process, think about how it can be improved. As Tavi says, keep figuring it out.
2 I heard of her from Adele.
9 comments:
You discover the most amazing things, Bix, on your journey to keep figuring it out! Wonderful!
many forwards - thanks. one of many reasons i have you in google reader (which you told me about).
ted talks, love them.
She has so much going for her. I didn't think I would watch the whole thing but I was drawn in by a weird mix of innocence and wisdom.
And it's not like her wisdom is just for teens; in my 20's I still have a ton, A TON, to figure out.
If a strong woman is flawed I must be Mighty Woman because my flaws start first thing when I get out of bed in the morning!
Claudia :) I will think of you now as Mighty Woman.
People who say they've figured it out are the least trustworthy because they refuse to keep testing their theories, and they're only theories!, when new information presents itself. If you're not flawed, you're a 2-dimensional cartoon character.
"People who say they've figured it out are the least trustworthy..."
Now see, I think that. Notwithstanding the "basic principles" that Tavi mentioned, those who claim to have arrived have just stopped the journey. The world is going on without them.
When Dr. Weil holds tight to taking supplements, when Drs. Eades and Atkins hold tight to eating low-carb and lots of meat, when Dr. McDougall purports to know that starch-based diets are the healthiest, they have hinged their careers on static ideas.
Taking vitamins in doses beyond that which you find in food, eating a diet low in plant food, or a diet that eliminates animal food ... all of these positions have been challenged in the literature. Can you imagine someone who has spent the bulk of his adult life, all his resources, entertaining the idea that, say, "Protein Power" is not the healthiest way to go? Indeed, is dangerous for some people? Their incomes depend on defending their static principles.
Speaking of perfect diets, when I was in school we had to take a semester in Lifecycle Nutrition. I don't know if that's required anymore, but it taught the different needs at various times in a person's life, from infancy to old age. Nutritional needs change as you change. These diets ...low-carb, vegan, heavily supplemented, etc. ... don't take lifecycle into account. They also don't address disease states. e.g. Many people with diabetes present with some level of renal insufficiency that a high-protein diet makes worse. But this isn't relayed. Because there is ego and income involved.
Post a Comment