As a college student, I have a major problem with eating healthily.
There have been many times in the past almost-two years in which I have just fed myself to “fill up” instead of being aware of what nutrients, calories, whatever I was intaking.
The past two days, however, I have had pretty awesome fruit salads. The only time I eat fruits is when I’m home with my parents. They have pears and bananas and apples, and I always gorge on them.
When I get back to this apartment, I nom on spinach and Famous Amos cookies and cheese.
Now, the only time that I make these poor eating decisions is during the weekend because during the week, I usually eat on campus, and choose well-balanced meals. But on the weekends, I can eat lots of cheese and a PB&J sandwich, and I’m good until the next day.
It’s horrible, I know, and I’m not saying that this should be the dietary solution for everyone ever because it most certainly shouldn’t be like this for anyone. I’m just trying to prove that I’m a “poor, hungry, college kid.”
I think this brings an interesting discussion on stereotypes to light.
See, we have stereotypes because we want everything to mold into simple solutions because people who don’t actually write like to write people off, and people who do write like to write antagonists in their stories who write people off.
That said, I’m not asserting that the learned and erudite are above stereotyping because, well, they are inherently not.
Writers base stock characters in stories solely on these stereotypical characteristics; I think it has something to do with the there’s-no-original-story mantra.
But along with this notion of the stereotypical stock character, I think there’s a position of characters these writers want to make stereoatypical.
Now, I just Google’d this term to see if it’s an original saying or not, and, to prove my earlier point, it isn’t.
And while I’m not sure I think a person can be totally stereoatypical against with what “society” or whatever has branded them, I think people produce stereoatypical characteristics within their stereotypical states.
Like, for me. When I was a pre-teen blogger, I talked a lot about my “feelings” and “emotions” and basically anything melodramatic of which you can think. I was a stereotypical pre-teen using the Internet. But as I grew up, I realized that doesn’t make for an interesting read and isn’t professional nor mature.
At the same time that I was blogging, I also had mapped-out days because I like doing a billion things at once, and I’m pretty sure that’s stereoatypical of a normal middleschooler or highschooler. Also, the amount of time I spent on Emma Watson websites had to have been stereoatypical of any right-in-the-head 11-year-old.
I’ve now grown to the point where I don’t think my qualities are inherently stereotypical to one group, but that I am a bunch of stereotypes and stereoatpyes simultaneously.
One of my bigger goals is to understand people as … people because I really do have a hard time discerning the difference between someone I admire and the fact that they have to blow their noses into many facial tissues when they get sick — something that I usually attribute to an inherently Ryan quality.
Along with this, I think I want to try to push myself into thinking of someone as not the stereotypical mold into which I assign them but as a person who’s created of stereotypes and stereoatypes. (I know this sounds bad, but read further.)
I want to get into the mindset that kindness doesn’t always guarantee genuinity (I’m sorry for making up a word), that crudeness doesn’t always equate to staticity (again, apologies), and that ambivalence doesn’t always mirror lasciviousness.
In the mean time, I’ll try to break away from being a stereotypical poor, hungry-yet-unhealthy, college kid with my once-in-a-while fruit salads.
And then after that, I can wash them down with a glorious grilled cheese sandwiches.
If you haven’t voted for today: http://dft.ba/-iw2