I freely chose the kind of life I led because I was convinced that a woman has as much right as a man to live the way she does if she does no actual harm to society.
Mae WestRead
I only have 'yes' men around me. Who needs 'no' men?
Interpretation
The quote reflects a preference for affirmation over criticism in one's circle of influence.
Mae West's quote highlights the idea that surrounding oneself with people who always agree can create an environment of compliance, where dissenting opinions are unwelcome. This can be both empowering and potentially limiting, as it fosters a sense of positivity but can also lead to a lack of critical feedback and growth. The choice indicates an inclination towards affirmation, possibly at the cost of valuable insights that 'no' men could provide.
In practice
In a team meeting discussing strategy, you might quote Mae West to emphasize the importance of a supportive environment.
I freely chose the kind of life I led because I was convinced that a woman has as much right as a man to live the way she does if she does no actual harm to society.
Kiss and make up-but too much makeup has ruined many a kiss.
I'll try anything once, twice if I like it, three times to make sure.
A girl in the convertible is worth five in the phone book.
Don't keep a man guessing too long - he's sure to find the answer somewhere else.
I believe that one day the world will judge the witch hunt against homosexuals just as harshly as it judges the Spanish Inquisition and the Holocaust.
Almost as swiftly as he had imagined it, she had torn her clothes off, and when she flung them aside it was with that same magnificent gesture by which a whole civilization seemed to be annihilated.
Human civilization is not something achieved against nature; it is rather the outcome of the working of the innate qualities of man.
What good would politics be, if it didnβt give everyone the opportunity to make moral compromises.
At the most we gaze at it in wonder, a kind of wonder which in itself is a form of dawning horror, for somehow we know by instinct that outsize buildings cast the shadow of their own destruction before them, and are designed from the first with an eye to their later existence as ruins.
So far as this argument is concerned nonhuman animals and infants and retarded humans are in the same category; and if we use this argument to justify experiments on nonhuman animals we have to ask ourselves whether we are also prepared to allow experiments on human infants and retarded adults; and if we make a distinction between animals and these humans, on what basis can we do it, other than a bare-faced - and morally indefensible - preference for members of our own species?
With sadness specifically, in America you read about people medicating to avoid sadness. They don't want to experience sadness, and yet it's such a vital part of being human.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.