#a text reply

HYES shychemist actually made a super rad pants post! 

But here a couple of blogs that I personally love (some of them are personal blogs but they also post animal stuff)

Thank you. 

I'm probably one of the worst procrastinators ever. So I'm extremely uncomfortable working without pressure. But that's not always healthy (let's be real though, that's something most people do anyways). 

But since I'm a huuuuge nerd, I surround myself with people and things that are related to stuff I'm interested in. I procrastinate by reading books or watching documentaries close to my interests, but not necessarily about my interests and never anything that's required. Because the moment it's required, I lose all interest in it. So I have articles on my phone that I read when I'm interested. I check this blog every now and then. I don't always read/watch everything before I post it, so sometimes I see things that are posted from my queue that makes me sigh. BUT I use them myself as a thinking exercise and think about why I don't like it, why it's frustrating/problematic, and also why did I just assume it was a good article without even reading/watching it (has to do with everyday blind faith and probably trust associated to academics/sources). 

But anyways, if you have a smartphone, it's a lot easier to read articles for funsies on a small screen. I think there's actually a study on that where people are more likely to read more and for longer periods while on mobile/ereader than on a computer (online article). Besides, it's a great thing to do while waiting. 

I also have more fun books, like Petter and Desbordes's Primates of the World. Also fun internships and volunteering in those fields help because it's passive learning. And I'm all for passive learning. 

Sometimes, the grad/postgrads/profs have these gatherings at bars where they get drunk and talk about research. Those are fun to attend because you see a bunch of nerds nerding it out and drunken nerd arguments are hilarious because sometimes you see them say "Oh yea, whaaaaat's yourue sssouurce for thaaat" "CHENEY AND SEYFARTH, 1990! BOOM! -insert vervet vocalization-." But those may be difficult to find/get into because they're pretty a intimate group, so you can make that happen yourself. 

Just between you and me, when I started anthropology, I sucked at it (and I still do at certain parts — nope, shut up let me talk). In anthro 101, a student used to word “primitive” to refer to a group of people and the professor went on a 30 minute rampage about why you should never use that word. And at the end of the day, none of us understood any of that. I remember turning to my classmate with the most incredulous expression. Thinking, wow woman, calm down, it’s only a word. Yea, I used to be that horrible. Even though we went over it all in detail, I didn’t understand why people did FGM, how hijras existed, why coded language existed, why does it matter whether we’re descended from africa, why does it matter if neanderthals are the same species as us or not, etc. Even after that semester, I still didn’t understand. And I’m confident barely any of my classmates did either. They all hated anthropology. But it intrigued me. I didn’t understand it, but it was interesting. I was a pretty bad anthropology student starting out, but honestly, everyone starting out was. Because with anthropology, you literally have to change your way of thinking, question dogmas, and truly try to understand why you see the world the way you do — and why everyone else doesn’t. Peeling away the ethnocentrism, reconciling with your own biases and the biases of others, trying to balance your own personal morals/values and not let it influence how you view others — all of that takes time and isn’t easy. Anthropology demands that you do this within a semester’s time, but this is honestly something that people spend their whole lives experiencing.

In theory, no one gets the privilege of defining an individual's sexuality except that individual. In reality, it's icky because people will use markers (behavioral and environmental) with which to try to define other people (which we all agree is rude). BUT if someone tells you that they are a specific orientation/identification, then follow that because only they're qualified to identify themselves, so they would be 100% accurate in that regard (I mean, they are defining themselves). But beyond that, the best you can do is make an educated guess based off of your life experience, but you should not really assume that as truth or even vaguely accurate. 

I haven't seen it, but my dad loves it (which isn't really a good thing to base off on because I question his tastes about many things). I'll definitely watch it and write about it. All I know is that it's a comedy and there are Bushmen there? Which I find skeptical at first because it can be pretty bad. Besides when it comes to the media portraying culture, I'm always a bit critical. Films, especially if it's a comedy, should not be allowed to use sensitive issues as jokes if they don't talk about why it's problematic.