Amen to this Values.com quote of the day, although I like to think--from my maybe limited experience--that real happiness from integrity, a less 'carefree' happiness but more whole and abiding, rather than the plasticky bubbliness or shallow exuberance so many seem to think of as happiness in our culture today, is sort of an inevitable consequence of a life so dedicated:
“The purpose of life is not to be happy. It is to be useful, to be honorable, to be compassionate, to have it make some difference that you have lived and lived well.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882);
Philosopher, Poet, Author, Essayist
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Culture. Show all posts
30 November 2010
13 November 2010
Jon Stewart on Rachel Maddow
At the gym the other night, I was flipping through channels on my elliptical machine, and I came across and interview of Jon Stewart by Rachel Maddow, and I was instantly hooked.
Background: I used to dislike Jon Stewart, primarily for the reasons I heard him describing--he's a satirist, which doesn't necessarily build or isn't necessarily constructive. When I tried watching his show many, many years ago, I was extremely disgusted by most forms of cynicism, and I firmly believed the world had enough sarcastic, snide voices. I also used to see his criticism of right-wing or conservative political dialog or figures, and because I felt defensive, I decided he was antagonistic and was criticizing for popularity, and I wouldn't give him the reward of watching. However, my alignment or ideology has expanded, shifted, and been tempered over time, and I am no longer more defensive of republicans than democrats or vice versa (even though I honestly thought I was fair-minded before and didn't realize how much more defensive I was of republicans than democrats, for example). I still believe the world needs much less cynicism, but I now see Jon Stewart as more satirical than cynical, and despite my continuing insistence that we need more constructive conversation, or maybe because of it, I've been intrigued by his recent "rally to restore sanity" and his articulated reasons for it.
In this interview, I found myself nodding constantly. It doesn't negate the need to preserve "our way of life", or defend ourselves from enemies outside of and within our borders, or move forward in keeping government in check, etc. But what he says about the almost cartoonish "left vs. right" mentality, the role of Fox and MSNBC as 24-hour news agencies, Stewart's role as a comedic commentator on the news, etc is mostly exactly how I think of things. I guess it makes sense why he's grown on me as I've started perceiving his light-hearted efforts to point out folly in our news media culture today and taken that to something he hoped would be constructive like the rally at the Capitol.
I so wish there were more interviews like this out there, between two people disagreeing without getting snippy and shouting, agreeing on common ground without constantly needing to bring in sensationalized dichotomies and re-drawing battle lines, and setting aside defensiveness to say, "OK, that's a fair point," or, "Maybe. That may very well be." In our culture, we're so ridiculously fond of what we seem to think is 'conviction' that anything other than pompous posturing and closed-eared insistence is perceived as 'wishy washy' or 'skirting the issues', if not downright unintelligent, when I think quite the opposite.
Short version: Jon Stewart has been gaining a lot of points with me lately, and this interview is an example of why. And I had to give Rachel Maddow some credit for seemingly admitting to some exaggeration to make a point.
What I watched on Maddow's show was cut thematically, which you can find on her web site, as well as the full, unedited interview, which I've embedded below and recommend watching if/when you have the time:
Background: I used to dislike Jon Stewart, primarily for the reasons I heard him describing--he's a satirist, which doesn't necessarily build or isn't necessarily constructive. When I tried watching his show many, many years ago, I was extremely disgusted by most forms of cynicism, and I firmly believed the world had enough sarcastic, snide voices. I also used to see his criticism of right-wing or conservative political dialog or figures, and because I felt defensive, I decided he was antagonistic and was criticizing for popularity, and I wouldn't give him the reward of watching. However, my alignment or ideology has expanded, shifted, and been tempered over time, and I am no longer more defensive of republicans than democrats or vice versa (even though I honestly thought I was fair-minded before and didn't realize how much more defensive I was of republicans than democrats, for example). I still believe the world needs much less cynicism, but I now see Jon Stewart as more satirical than cynical, and despite my continuing insistence that we need more constructive conversation, or maybe because of it, I've been intrigued by his recent "rally to restore sanity" and his articulated reasons for it.
In this interview, I found myself nodding constantly. It doesn't negate the need to preserve "our way of life", or defend ourselves from enemies outside of and within our borders, or move forward in keeping government in check, etc. But what he says about the almost cartoonish "left vs. right" mentality, the role of Fox and MSNBC as 24-hour news agencies, Stewart's role as a comedic commentator on the news, etc is mostly exactly how I think of things. I guess it makes sense why he's grown on me as I've started perceiving his light-hearted efforts to point out folly in our news media culture today and taken that to something he hoped would be constructive like the rally at the Capitol.
I so wish there were more interviews like this out there, between two people disagreeing without getting snippy and shouting, agreeing on common ground without constantly needing to bring in sensationalized dichotomies and re-drawing battle lines, and setting aside defensiveness to say, "OK, that's a fair point," or, "Maybe. That may very well be." In our culture, we're so ridiculously fond of what we seem to think is 'conviction' that anything other than pompous posturing and closed-eared insistence is perceived as 'wishy washy' or 'skirting the issues', if not downright unintelligent, when I think quite the opposite.
Short version: Jon Stewart has been gaining a lot of points with me lately, and this interview is an example of why. And I had to give Rachel Maddow some credit for seemingly admitting to some exaggeration to make a point.
What I watched on Maddow's show was cut thematically, which you can find on her web site, as well as the full, unedited interview, which I've embedded below and recommend watching if/when you have the time:
16 October 2010
God in America
PBS has just released a new documentary about the history of religion's influence in American culture and politics, called God in America. I've only watched the first two parts, but it's been interesting so far. Looking forward to finishing it.
15 October 2010
Crusaders and the diminishing of journalism
This is actually my response to comments made on my previous post, The power of fact-based fiction.
I knew very well my previous post would be unpalatable to many who read this blog, and many of you would be driven to defend Beck (either gently or passionately), but I'm not going to silently stand by while I watch trends which worry me. There are a lot of people out there daring to say things few others are saying: whether you agree with someone seems to define whether someone is a courageous crusader or a misguided loudmouth, so let's set aside the heroism.
I have a thing or two to say as well, and I won't be subdued or brushed aside by the pseudo-humble pomp of the self-supposed saviors and guardians of American values and principles of government when the welfare of my country is at stake. I can muster righteous indignation, too. Does that make me more correct?
Those of us who either disagree with Beck (nevermind the Tea Party, which I have mixed thoughts about) or may agree with most of his principles but find his theories to be more interesting speculation than meticulously researched history are not pseudo-intellectual, left-wing elitists (which is a convenient stick used to beat dissenters at least as much dissenters of left-wing politics are beaten with the "ignorant yokles" or "pseudointellectual ultra-wealthy right-wing elitists" stick) or ignorantly swallowing the spoon-feedings of the left-wing media machine and our left-wing, watered-down-history public education.
I'm not going to debate, here, whether the Obama administration has secretive, underhanded, nefarious plans for the downfall of "the Republic". That's not at all what this is about.
And no, there's nobody who doesn't make some errors in fact. The problem isn't the occasional errors in fact, as I stated.
Why don't more Republicans or other conservative-leaning public figures express any dissent or concerns about Beck's rhetoric? Obviously, because he's right, and they know it, right? Or could it be that it's politically and socially advantageous for them to play nice due to his fiercely loyal supporters who are increasingly energized by a sense of victory and progress, ready to bulldoze any who try to stop them?
If he and his fellow crusaders are right, they're right. But the mentality is one that easily snowballs into dangerous proportions. So the basis of the passion and revolutionary attitude really do become that much more crucial and pivotal, which is why I focus on Glenn Beck as an obvious key player rather than, say, Rachel Maddow, whose overly-loyal listeners also often neglect to context-check her "well-documented" facts but who do not constitute the kind of force to be reckoned with that the Tea Party movement, for example, represents.
Concerns over current administrations (including Bush's) aside, there are people from all political angles, including fiscally conservative libertarians, who are concerned over Beck's weaving of theories using technically accurate but over-interpreted facts, with people joining the righteously passionate "we won't take it anymore" throngs but who most often (not always) neglect to get online (or go to a library, if that seems more reliable to some) and research "the other side" because they've already dismissed the "other side" as untrustworthy because they're either implicit in or ignorantly duped by underhanded smoke and mirrors as part of the supposed conspiracy. Maybe change will only be accomplished by the kind of passion born of believing a one-sided or extreme portrayal of "opponents", but I'd like to think that's not true.
That's the thing. I believe he's usually at least partially right! I do! It's the extent to which he takes things, perhaps deliberately overshooting to elicit the response necessary to effect change (not an uncommon tactic), that concerns me.
And just like you, some of us have had enough and, despite agreeing with many of the principles Glenn Beck is defending and concerns over the role of government, want to stop another runaway train before it's out of control, and despite trying to remain objective and fair-minded, I'm pretty damned passionate about certain trends I see, like the move, on many fronts, from as-objective-as-possible journalistic integrity to impassioned speculative commentary, combined with an apparent tendency of many Americans to seem increasingly disinterested in distinguishing the two.
I knew very well my previous post would be unpalatable to many who read this blog, and many of you would be driven to defend Beck (either gently or passionately), but I'm not going to silently stand by while I watch trends which worry me. There are a lot of people out there daring to say things few others are saying: whether you agree with someone seems to define whether someone is a courageous crusader or a misguided loudmouth, so let's set aside the heroism.
I have a thing or two to say as well, and I won't be subdued or brushed aside by the pseudo-humble pomp of the self-supposed saviors and guardians of American values and principles of government when the welfare of my country is at stake. I can muster righteous indignation, too. Does that make me more correct?
Those of us who either disagree with Beck (nevermind the Tea Party, which I have mixed thoughts about) or may agree with most of his principles but find his theories to be more interesting speculation than meticulously researched history are not pseudo-intellectual, left-wing elitists (which is a convenient stick used to beat dissenters at least as much dissenters of left-wing politics are beaten with the "ignorant yokles" or "pseudointellectual ultra-wealthy right-wing elitists" stick) or ignorantly swallowing the spoon-feedings of the left-wing media machine and our left-wing, watered-down-history public education.
I'm not going to debate, here, whether the Obama administration has secretive, underhanded, nefarious plans for the downfall of "the Republic". That's not at all what this is about.
And no, there's nobody who doesn't make some errors in fact. The problem isn't the occasional errors in fact, as I stated.
Why don't more Republicans or other conservative-leaning public figures express any dissent or concerns about Beck's rhetoric? Obviously, because he's right, and they know it, right? Or could it be that it's politically and socially advantageous for them to play nice due to his fiercely loyal supporters who are increasingly energized by a sense of victory and progress, ready to bulldoze any who try to stop them?
If he and his fellow crusaders are right, they're right. But the mentality is one that easily snowballs into dangerous proportions. So the basis of the passion and revolutionary attitude really do become that much more crucial and pivotal, which is why I focus on Glenn Beck as an obvious key player rather than, say, Rachel Maddow, whose overly-loyal listeners also often neglect to context-check her "well-documented" facts but who do not constitute the kind of force to be reckoned with that the Tea Party movement, for example, represents.
Concerns over current administrations (including Bush's) aside, there are people from all political angles, including fiscally conservative libertarians, who are concerned over Beck's weaving of theories using technically accurate but over-interpreted facts, with people joining the righteously passionate "we won't take it anymore" throngs but who most often (not always) neglect to get online (or go to a library, if that seems more reliable to some) and research "the other side" because they've already dismissed the "other side" as untrustworthy because they're either implicit in or ignorantly duped by underhanded smoke and mirrors as part of the supposed conspiracy. Maybe change will only be accomplished by the kind of passion born of believing a one-sided or extreme portrayal of "opponents", but I'd like to think that's not true.
That's the thing. I believe he's usually at least partially right! I do! It's the extent to which he takes things, perhaps deliberately overshooting to elicit the response necessary to effect change (not an uncommon tactic), that concerns me.
And just like you, some of us have had enough and, despite agreeing with many of the principles Glenn Beck is defending and concerns over the role of government, want to stop another runaway train before it's out of control, and despite trying to remain objective and fair-minded, I'm pretty damned passionate about certain trends I see, like the move, on many fronts, from as-objective-as-possible journalistic integrity to impassioned speculative commentary, combined with an apparent tendency of many Americans to seem increasingly disinterested in distinguishing the two.
12 October 2010
Public education satire from The Onion
Oh man, these are funny:
Language warning on the first one--includes one F-bomb and a few "s-words", but I think most of you will appreciate their jabs:
In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Shit?
My favorite part about this one is actually the comment at the end about MTV scientists:
Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming
Language warning on the first one--includes one F-bomb and a few "s-words", but I think most of you will appreciate their jabs:
In The Know: Are Tests Biased Against Students Who Don't Give A Shit?
My favorite part about this one is actually the comment at the end about MTV scientists:
Christian Groups: Biblical Armageddon Must Be Taught Alongside Global Warming
06 October 2010
Anti-bullying and the golden rule
I recommend the following editorial by Warren Throckmorton concerning the need to set aside pompous (oops, did I insert my opinion?) political power plays to approach problems with a more solution-oriented attitude:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/my-take-a-christian-response-to-anti-gay-bullying/
Ellen's plea:
Incidentally, I think a war on bullying is about as winnable as a war on terror. It will never end. To really deal with the issue, parents have to teach compassion to their children in their own homes, and more than that, they need to teach their children how to deal with the persecution they simply will face in their lives. The important thing is that every child and teenager knows there is somewhere to go, someone to turn to, someplace to be safe. Be someone's shelter and safety.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/05/my-take-a-christian-response-to-anti-gay-bullying/
Ellen's plea:
Incidentally, I think a war on bullying is about as winnable as a war on terror. It will never end. To really deal with the issue, parents have to teach compassion to their children in their own homes, and more than that, they need to teach their children how to deal with the persecution they simply will face in their lives. The important thing is that every child and teenager knows there is somewhere to go, someone to turn to, someplace to be safe. Be someone's shelter and safety.
07 August 2010
Myopic Perceptions of Success
I suspect there're facets of intelligence (maybe factual, theoretical, creative, artistic, emotional...), and few if any people excel in all. I prefer to surround myself w/people who don't compare based primarily on factual recall or traditional "success" but who see every one as differently intelligent, seeking opportunities to learn, not for excellence but for progress, both personal and universal.
This in no way denies that some people excel in certain aspects, nor does it ignore the primal motivation of competition in human accomplishment. I think it just brings back to a more natural level the grandiose, clownish magnification of the role of competition to which we've grown so attached in our culture and recognizes that there are many ways to measure intelligence and accomplishment other than society's favored, generalized measures of superiority which mask more subtle, less economically advantageous potential, abilities, and contributions offered by each one of us.
I have trouble stomaching the rhetoric of people who measure personal success or even happiness in position, office, wealth, comfort, certificates, or the esteem of others in a community of the like-minded. Maybe this disinterest in traditional success or the opinions of others partially explains why I don't have a very impressive resume. :-)
This in no way denies that some people excel in certain aspects, nor does it ignore the primal motivation of competition in human accomplishment. I think it just brings back to a more natural level the grandiose, clownish magnification of the role of competition to which we've grown so attached in our culture and recognizes that there are many ways to measure intelligence and accomplishment other than society's favored, generalized measures of superiority which mask more subtle, less economically advantageous potential, abilities, and contributions offered by each one of us.
I have trouble stomaching the rhetoric of people who measure personal success or even happiness in position, office, wealth, comfort, certificates, or the esteem of others in a community of the like-minded. Maybe this disinterest in traditional success or the opinions of others partially explains why I don't have a very impressive resume. :-)
17 June 2010
Nice Guys
I just read this and loved it, so I'm reposting it here, with the language edited out because I know some of you might stop reading because of it. It's a letter to women written on Craig's List, of all places, by a "recovering nice guy" to address their classic question: "What happened to all the nice guys?" Of course, it seems to be coming from a very bitter guy who, for all I know, is some creep who's bitter at women for rejecting him when he's never made an effort to be anything other than a smelly, lazy, slob who has no ambition in life other than to try to emotionally guilt women into loving him by being emotionally available so he can hold it over their heads. But even so, what he says is funny and too true to me because I have seen people do just this: ask where all the nice guys/girls are when they clearly have been choosing people based on "other" criteria than those which would help them find the "nice" ones. Heck, I've wondered if I've been doing that, myself. I think a similar argument, slightly tweaked, can probably be made for the way guys treat girls, not to mention guys towards guys. Anyway, read on for a head-nodding chuckle:
-------------------------------------
"What Happened to All the Nice Guys?"
Date: 2007-11-19, 3:52AM PST
I see this question posted with some regularity in the personals section, so I thought I'd take a minute to explain things to the ladies out there that haven't figured it out.
What happened to all the nice guys?
The answer is simple: you did.
See, if you think back, really hard, you might vaguely remember a Platonic guy pal who always seemed to want to spend time with you. He'd tag along with you when you went shopping, stop by your place for a movie when you were lonely but didn't feel like going out, or even sit there and hold you while you sobbed and told him about how horribly the (other) guy that you were [schtupping] treated you.
At the time, you probably joked with your girlfriends about how he was a little puppy dog, always following you around, trying to do things to get you to pay attention to him. They probably teased you because they thought he had a crush on you. Given that his behavior was, admittedly, a little pathetic, you vehemently denied having any romantic feelings for him, and buttressed your position by claiming that you were "just friends." Besides, he totally wasn't your type. I mean, he was a little too short, or too bald, or too fat, or too poor, or didn't know how to dress himself, or basically be or do any of the things that your tall, good-looking, fit, rich, stylish boyfriend at the time pulled off with such ease.
Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him. More time passed, and the boyfriend eventually cheated on you, or became boring, or you realized that the things that attracted you to him weren't the kinds of things that make for a good, long-term relationship. So, now, you're single again, and after having tried the bar scene for several months having only encountered players and douche bags, you wonder, "What happened to all the nice guys?"
Well, once again, you did.
You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy. You laughed at his consideration and resented his devotion. You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive "just-a-" friend. Eventually, he took the hint and moved on with his life. He probably came to realize, one day, that women aren't really attracted to guys who hold doors open; or make dinners just because; or buy you a Christmas gift that you mentioned, in passing, that you really wanted five months ago; or listen when you're upset; or hold you when you cry. He came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he'd have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of [a jerk] than he ever wanted to be.
Fact is, now, he's probably getting laid, and in a way, your ultimate rejection of him is to thank for that. And I'm sorry that it took the complete absence of "nice guys" in your life for you to realize that you missed them and wanted them. Most women will only have a handful of nice guys stumble into their lives, if that.
So, if you're looking for a nice guy, here's what you do:
1.) Build a time machine.
2.) Go back a few years and pull your head out of your [rectum].
3.) Take a look at what's right in front of you and grab ahold of it.
I suppose the other possibility is that you STILL don't really want a nice guy, but you feel the social pressure to at least appear to have matured beyond your infantile taste in men. In which case, you might be in luck, because the nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle and is out there looking to unleash his cynicism and resentment onto someone just like you.
If you were five years younger.
So, please: either stop misrepresenting what you want, or own up to the fact that you've [screwed] yourself over. You're getting older, after all. It's time to excise the [bull] and deal with reality. You didn't want a nice guy then, and he certainly doesn't ---- want you, now.
Sincerely,
A Recovering Nice Guy
-------------------------------------
"What Happened to All the Nice Guys?"
Date: 2007-11-19, 3:52AM PST
I see this question posted with some regularity in the personals section, so I thought I'd take a minute to explain things to the ladies out there that haven't figured it out.
What happened to all the nice guys?
The answer is simple: you did.
See, if you think back, really hard, you might vaguely remember a Platonic guy pal who always seemed to want to spend time with you. He'd tag along with you when you went shopping, stop by your place for a movie when you were lonely but didn't feel like going out, or even sit there and hold you while you sobbed and told him about how horribly the (other) guy that you were [schtupping] treated you.
At the time, you probably joked with your girlfriends about how he was a little puppy dog, always following you around, trying to do things to get you to pay attention to him. They probably teased you because they thought he had a crush on you. Given that his behavior was, admittedly, a little pathetic, you vehemently denied having any romantic feelings for him, and buttressed your position by claiming that you were "just friends." Besides, he totally wasn't your type. I mean, he was a little too short, or too bald, or too fat, or too poor, or didn't know how to dress himself, or basically be or do any of the things that your tall, good-looking, fit, rich, stylish boyfriend at the time pulled off with such ease.
Eventually, your Platonic buddy drifted away, as your relationship with the boyfriend got more serious and spending time with this other guy was, admittedly, a little weird, if you werent dating him. More time passed, and the boyfriend eventually cheated on you, or became boring, or you realized that the things that attracted you to him weren't the kinds of things that make for a good, long-term relationship. So, now, you're single again, and after having tried the bar scene for several months having only encountered players and douche bags, you wonder, "What happened to all the nice guys?"
Well, once again, you did.
You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy. You laughed at his consideration and resented his devotion. You valued the aloof boyfriend more than the attentive "just-a-" friend. Eventually, he took the hint and moved on with his life. He probably came to realize, one day, that women aren't really attracted to guys who hold doors open; or make dinners just because; or buy you a Christmas gift that you mentioned, in passing, that you really wanted five months ago; or listen when you're upset; or hold you when you cry. He came to realize that, if he wanted a woman like you, he'd have to act more like the boyfriend that you had. He probably cleaned up his look, started making some money, and generally acted like more of [a jerk] than he ever wanted to be.
Fact is, now, he's probably getting laid, and in a way, your ultimate rejection of him is to thank for that. And I'm sorry that it took the complete absence of "nice guys" in your life for you to realize that you missed them and wanted them. Most women will only have a handful of nice guys stumble into their lives, if that.
So, if you're looking for a nice guy, here's what you do:
1.) Build a time machine.
2.) Go back a few years and pull your head out of your [rectum].
3.) Take a look at what's right in front of you and grab ahold of it.
I suppose the other possibility is that you STILL don't really want a nice guy, but you feel the social pressure to at least appear to have matured beyond your infantile taste in men. In which case, you might be in luck, because the nice guy you claim to want has, in reality, shed his nice guy mantle and is out there looking to unleash his cynicism and resentment onto someone just like you.
If you were five years younger.
So, please: either stop misrepresenting what you want, or own up to the fact that you've [screwed] yourself over. You're getting older, after all. It's time to excise the [bull] and deal with reality. You didn't want a nice guy then, and he certainly doesn't ---- want you, now.
Sincerely,
A Recovering Nice Guy
28 May 2010
Uganda's Anti-Homosexuality Fiasco
Please watch as much of this as you can spare time for:
OK, so maybe their tactics are a bit strong, and the law is a touch severe, but thank goodness SOMEONE has the guts to make a stand against a degrading and immoral lifestyle against God's will.
-------------------------
It saddens me to think of how many of my friends would probably respond the way I just wrote or were nodding their heads and completely miss the point, which is not whether homosexuality is "OK" but what right the government has to put people to death for it, let alone imprison them, as well as what homosexuality is and the consequences of the way we talk about it.
The bill, which a government-appointed commission has apparently recommended be withdrawn despite the author's refusal to personally do so, would increase the severity of punishments for homosexuality, which is already illegal there, and put to death repeat-offenders who are HIV-positive, would fine or imprison anyone who does not report a known homosexual within 24 hours of finding out, and would imprison homosexuals for up to life. Such severe measures sound incredible to most Americans, I think, but we're talking about a country in which some past king was a hideous pedophile who apparently put his young male pages to death for refusing, based on their Christian beliefs, to have sex with him, so maybe it's understandable why so many are blindly believing the lies being fed to them and shouting battle cries in what they regard as a moral, or spiritual, war.
War, whether physical or spiritual, real or fabricated, is a favorite tool of the power-hungry and proud to wield control over the masses, to feel justified in oppression, lies, fear tactics, and vengeance by creating a false or exaggerated enemy, to spread the lie that any means are justified to avoid a dastardly end or the rise of a destructive or threatening people. It's been done to Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Mormons...
If what Ssempa preaches is true, then all the gay folk I know are going about it all wrong, concerned about the welfare of youth who feel different from their peers but certainly not interested in recruiting, and thinking of their homosexuality in terms of love and affection more than sex. As far as I know, eating crap is revolting to as many gay people as straight people, but maybe I'm just duped by the nefarious gay agenda...you know, the real homosexuality. Some may believe Ssempa's cause to be righteous, but the fruits of his preaching and that of those like him are lies (or, at best, half-truths), hatred, and fear, which are Satanic by most Christian doctrine. This is not, I assert, how Jesus would bring his people up in righteousness. Call me crazy.
Of course, there's far more to this story, like addressing the claims of the evangelical anti-homosexuality preachers, or paralleling the tactics used there with certain much milder but similarly specious tactics used here against gay rights, but we can have that conversation one-on-one 'cause it's more complex than I care to write about right now. After all, haven't I gone on long enough? :-)
OK, so maybe their tactics are a bit strong, and the law is a touch severe, but thank goodness SOMEONE has the guts to make a stand against a degrading and immoral lifestyle against God's will.
-------------------------
It saddens me to think of how many of my friends would probably respond the way I just wrote or were nodding their heads and completely miss the point, which is not whether homosexuality is "OK" but what right the government has to put people to death for it, let alone imprison them, as well as what homosexuality is and the consequences of the way we talk about it.
The bill, which a government-appointed commission has apparently recommended be withdrawn despite the author's refusal to personally do so, would increase the severity of punishments for homosexuality, which is already illegal there, and put to death repeat-offenders who are HIV-positive, would fine or imprison anyone who does not report a known homosexual within 24 hours of finding out, and would imprison homosexuals for up to life. Such severe measures sound incredible to most Americans, I think, but we're talking about a country in which some past king was a hideous pedophile who apparently put his young male pages to death for refusing, based on their Christian beliefs, to have sex with him, so maybe it's understandable why so many are blindly believing the lies being fed to them and shouting battle cries in what they regard as a moral, or spiritual, war.
War, whether physical or spiritual, real or fabricated, is a favorite tool of the power-hungry and proud to wield control over the masses, to feel justified in oppression, lies, fear tactics, and vengeance by creating a false or exaggerated enemy, to spread the lie that any means are justified to avoid a dastardly end or the rise of a destructive or threatening people. It's been done to Jews, African Americans, Native Americans, Mormons...
If what Ssempa preaches is true, then all the gay folk I know are going about it all wrong, concerned about the welfare of youth who feel different from their peers but certainly not interested in recruiting, and thinking of their homosexuality in terms of love and affection more than sex. As far as I know, eating crap is revolting to as many gay people as straight people, but maybe I'm just duped by the nefarious gay agenda...you know, the real homosexuality. Some may believe Ssempa's cause to be righteous, but the fruits of his preaching and that of those like him are lies (or, at best, half-truths), hatred, and fear, which are Satanic by most Christian doctrine. This is not, I assert, how Jesus would bring his people up in righteousness. Call me crazy.
Of course, there's far more to this story, like addressing the claims of the evangelical anti-homosexuality preachers, or paralleling the tactics used there with certain much milder but similarly specious tactics used here against gay rights, but we can have that conversation one-on-one 'cause it's more complex than I care to write about right now. After all, haven't I gone on long enough? :-)
21 March 2010
Racial And Sexual Slurs In More Than Word
A friend posted a link to a story about the amazingly abhorrent and ignorant actions of certain tea party protesters on Facebook today. There are many, many similar stories throughout the news media yesterday and today. I read the story and was absolutely amazed that people could be so idiotic...except that I know there are such people.
I haven't heard the word "nigger" used in a long time, but I have witnessed drive-by shoutings of "faggot!" now and then, usually by teenage or college-age asses who obviously have lives so uninteresting that yelling at strangers gives them a boost. I keep hoping one of them will get so distracted by their yelling that they'll hit something large and unyielding with their toolish sports car or pick-up truck and save the world from the proliferation of their genetic code and social upbringing. But so far that hasn't happened, so I just join most others on the street in regarding them as pathetic little boys and hope they have some redeeming qualities and will one day learn how ridiculous and extraordinarily stupid they'd been, and I move on with my life. We've all been stupid, we've all been jerks, and fortunately, most of us grow out of most of it. OK, so I'd rather they grow out of it and have a chance to learn the error of their thinking and behavior than smash into something.
So anyway, I know the reaction I have about that kind of behavior, and from the article above, it's clear many in the media and in the democratic party are similarly expressing disgust. It's also become a punching bag for decrying the supposed redneck bigotry of the Tea Party movement. I'm pretty sure most of the Tea Party folks are not racist, homophobic haters, but I must admit I cringed as I thought of the probable response to this from the right: cries of media bias and speculation that it was only one or two people shouting the slurs. As I searched for news results, I found an article I expected would be exactly that. It mostly was. But it's more firm in its denunciation of the slurs than I thought it would be, and the author points out that the coverage of the protests has focused almost exclusively on those shouts rather than the substance of what the majority of protesters were really there for: political demonstration and strength in (large) numbers. But I still have a problem with the title and with the fact that the article clearly deliberately attempts to steer attention from the bigoted shouts to media bias and to another random, isolated slur against the Tea Party folks.
Fortunately, other articles have surfaced today regarding Republican and Tea Party leader denunciation of the racial slurs. They're unequivocally stating their opposition to it. I don't have a TV at home, so I don't know if Fox News is whining about media bias and insisting the whole thing is being blown out of proportion, afraid to alienate their more bigoted watchers, but I hope they're not. Hopefully, they're reporting responsibly and not slapping wrists for gross bigotry while giving quiet, good-ol'-boy pats on the back for political ballsiness.
Think I'm completely out of line in supposing that happens, let alone among those who matter? What about Rep. Steve King's response in which he likens it to "a lot of places in this country that I couldn't walk through," as if two wrongs (assuming he's even right about his statement) make "I just don't think it's anything," or the justification offered by Rep. Devin Nunes? I think many liberals are taking his comments out of context and ranting overzealously, but really, Nunes? Even beginning to excuse those comments or blame the government for their behavior? I suppose you would, then, proclaim that U.S. foreign policy is to blame for the 9-11 attacks? I know you said the word "crazy" but not directly referring to these specific people. You then went on to say "smearing" (in no specific reference) is "not appropriate", then going right into a "but" about the left wing? Classy. I can see why you're in office.
I don't think for a moment racism is finished in this country. I happen to live in a place where it is, I believe, relatively rare, but I've heard some really ignorant and even vitriolic comments, around work and social events, about a prominent ethnic minority here. And I'm pretty sure it's nothing compared to some regions of the country where history and culture wars keep tensions high. I don't think, for a moment, homophobic bigotry and discrimination based on sexual orientation is finished in this country. With recent and upcoming political wars, understanding is sacrificed to battle cries and vilification. Of course, I also don't think religious discrimination is a thing of the past. Discrimination in all its forms is alive, probably kept in check both by law and by the decency of people who make the difficult effort to challenge their own paradigms and open their ears and hearts and minds.
We act shocked when someone yells "nigger" or "faggot", but I've witnessed people yelling those things not in those words but in their actions and attitudes. Some idiots in the Tea Party protests have yelled nasty words, and that cannot be excused and should be vehemently denounced. But they were, as far as I can tell, a small minority of the group, denounced by the party's leadership. And yes, there's been bigger news to focus on than that, with sweeping reform immediately underway, but I want to remember that acting incidentally indignant over these relatively few people who shouted nasty words is fine and well and might make me look good for a moment, but I'll try to remember my feelings about them the next time I'm talking about minority groups in my community or the politics around immigration or marriage or civil rights and try to make sure I'm not doing the same thing as those idiots in my speech and demeanor, just without using those particular words.
I haven't heard the word "nigger" used in a long time, but I have witnessed drive-by shoutings of "faggot!" now and then, usually by teenage or college-age asses who obviously have lives so uninteresting that yelling at strangers gives them a boost. I keep hoping one of them will get so distracted by their yelling that they'll hit something large and unyielding with their toolish sports car or pick-up truck and save the world from the proliferation of their genetic code and social upbringing. But so far that hasn't happened, so I just join most others on the street in regarding them as pathetic little boys and hope they have some redeeming qualities and will one day learn how ridiculous and extraordinarily stupid they'd been, and I move on with my life. We've all been stupid, we've all been jerks, and fortunately, most of us grow out of most of it. OK, so I'd rather they grow out of it and have a chance to learn the error of their thinking and behavior than smash into something.
So anyway, I know the reaction I have about that kind of behavior, and from the article above, it's clear many in the media and in the democratic party are similarly expressing disgust. It's also become a punching bag for decrying the supposed redneck bigotry of the Tea Party movement. I'm pretty sure most of the Tea Party folks are not racist, homophobic haters, but I must admit I cringed as I thought of the probable response to this from the right: cries of media bias and speculation that it was only one or two people shouting the slurs. As I searched for news results, I found an article I expected would be exactly that. It mostly was. But it's more firm in its denunciation of the slurs than I thought it would be, and the author points out that the coverage of the protests has focused almost exclusively on those shouts rather than the substance of what the majority of protesters were really there for: political demonstration and strength in (large) numbers. But I still have a problem with the title and with the fact that the article clearly deliberately attempts to steer attention from the bigoted shouts to media bias and to another random, isolated slur against the Tea Party folks.
Fortunately, other articles have surfaced today regarding Republican and Tea Party leader denunciation of the racial slurs. They're unequivocally stating their opposition to it. I don't have a TV at home, so I don't know if Fox News is whining about media bias and insisting the whole thing is being blown out of proportion, afraid to alienate their more bigoted watchers, but I hope they're not. Hopefully, they're reporting responsibly and not slapping wrists for gross bigotry while giving quiet, good-ol'-boy pats on the back for political ballsiness.
Think I'm completely out of line in supposing that happens, let alone among those who matter? What about Rep. Steve King's response in which he likens it to "a lot of places in this country that I couldn't walk through," as if two wrongs (assuming he's even right about his statement) make "I just don't think it's anything," or the justification offered by Rep. Devin Nunes? I think many liberals are taking his comments out of context and ranting overzealously, but really, Nunes? Even beginning to excuse those comments or blame the government for their behavior? I suppose you would, then, proclaim that U.S. foreign policy is to blame for the 9-11 attacks? I know you said the word "crazy" but not directly referring to these specific people. You then went on to say "smearing" (in no specific reference) is "not appropriate", then going right into a "but" about the left wing? Classy. I can see why you're in office.
I don't think for a moment racism is finished in this country. I happen to live in a place where it is, I believe, relatively rare, but I've heard some really ignorant and even vitriolic comments, around work and social events, about a prominent ethnic minority here. And I'm pretty sure it's nothing compared to some regions of the country where history and culture wars keep tensions high. I don't think, for a moment, homophobic bigotry and discrimination based on sexual orientation is finished in this country. With recent and upcoming political wars, understanding is sacrificed to battle cries and vilification. Of course, I also don't think religious discrimination is a thing of the past. Discrimination in all its forms is alive, probably kept in check both by law and by the decency of people who make the difficult effort to challenge their own paradigms and open their ears and hearts and minds.
We act shocked when someone yells "nigger" or "faggot", but I've witnessed people yelling those things not in those words but in their actions and attitudes. Some idiots in the Tea Party protests have yelled nasty words, and that cannot be excused and should be vehemently denounced. But they were, as far as I can tell, a small minority of the group, denounced by the party's leadership. And yes, there's been bigger news to focus on than that, with sweeping reform immediately underway, but I want to remember that acting incidentally indignant over these relatively few people who shouted nasty words is fine and well and might make me look good for a moment, but I'll try to remember my feelings about them the next time I'm talking about minority groups in my community or the politics around immigration or marriage or civil rights and try to make sure I'm not doing the same thing as those idiots in my speech and demeanor, just without using those particular words.
10 March 2010
When "Appropriate" Is Beyond Definition
A friend of mine recently posted, on Facebook, some photos he took at an old Nazi concentration camp. As far as I know, he's been really interested in the history around those camps and in the writings and theory of Victor Frankl regarding logotherapy. The photos are sensitively taken and beautiful. Which is what sparked this post. Despite some of those who suffered taking away what they could from the unimaginable suffering, whatever positive could be gleaned from a profoundly negative situation, how are you supposed to admire or give cute little electronic "thumbs ups" to photos of a place of horror and ultimate degradation of humanity? It doesn't feel right somehow, not even when considering the glimmers of enduring, indomitable humanity which came out of it.
It takes me back to a couple of years ago, when I toured Dachau. It's so hard to describe the mix of emotions one feels when approaching an old concentration camp, and it seemed trite to try when I was writing my blog entry about it, so I just kept it casual, which also seemed trite but at least not pandering or patronizing. The truth is that when you're standing in that place, there's nothing, no treatment or response that seems appropriate, nothing that seems respectful other than silence. Neither laughter nor excessive somberness seemed quite right or natural for me, for reasons I'll not try to describe here and now. Standing where it happened, it seemed disgustingly insufficient to say atrocities took place, ignorant or insensitive to speak of the positive way some dealt with it, cold and clinical to speak of the historical aspects of it. It even seemed almost hideous for me to be questioning or analyzing my own emotional reaction because to do so was to distract from and severely disrespect those whose experiences I was merely imagining.
It seems like only one who was there has any right to speak of what it must have been like to be there. Only one who lost their dearest loved ones there has any right to say what the personal impact was or how to deal with such situations. Most experiences in life are like that, I suppose, but with something of this magnitude, I just don't even know what to do with it. The more I try to articulate this, the more inadequate and fumbling it seems. I don't intend to disrespect or offend in doing so, but I recognize that even publishing this just doesn't seem completely appropriate in some ways...but what is?
Some lines from a scene from The Reader came to mind as all of these thoughts flashed through my mind today in response to seeing those photos my friend took. The scene is a conversation between a Jewish woman who survived the camps and a male friend of a former female SS guard who, along with her fellow guards, was tried for leaving many Jews locked in a burning building during evacuation of a camp. Upon her death, the former SS guard leaves money to this Jewish woman, and the male friend has come to deliver the money to her. During the course of the conversation, she says the following to him:
Upon entering Dachau, I had a very distinct, clear impression: the magnitude of the evil which shadowed it was beyond my comprehension, and no "lessons" should ever have to be learned in a way even remotely approaching it. I experienced a strange dissonance between my desire to "make it real" and never forget and my desire to respect the dead by not gawking like a tourist at such...sacred?...hallowed?...evil?...haunted?...ground. I thought of having read about the holocaust and "learning lessons" from the experiences I read about, and being there on that ground, it seemed so utterly trifling to even think about "lessons learned". Standing in the camp, imagining the terrible situation and incomprehensible magnitude of the lives affected there, even trying to be sensitive to the shadows of the past and the lives which ended or were permanently scarred, even looking on a sculptural monument to their memory, I couldn't help but question whether I should even be there in the first place, whether anyone not directly connected or affected had any right setting foot there. But then, to forbid it would be to keep it from becoming real to people for whom it might not otherwise.
I do think the camp was respectfully managed, not some sort of voyeuristic tourist trap. And I certainly wouldn't tell people they shouldn't go. I think they should, if only to let the reality of the past sink in for themselves, as much as visiting the shadows can do. I still question my reaction, my dissonance of conscience. But there are no words. There's nothing that's not trite. In order for words not to be hollow and disrespectful, it seems they must be spoken on a historical basis, which has its time and place, but analyzing the historical ramifications and "lessons" of it while standing where it took place seems callous and inhumane, wildly inappropriate in the face of their lives and memories... It's difficult to describe. The only place I've heard similar thoughts expressed is in the movie The History Boys, where two professors (T1 and T2) of differing instruction styles and a group of students (S1-S6) are all sitting together:
All that said, after my long-winded attempt to explain my thoughts, I'm back to sensing that there are just some things for which...there are no words. They must be experienced to be known, whether or not they are understood. Those things are sacred in their own way.
It takes me back to a couple of years ago, when I toured Dachau. It's so hard to describe the mix of emotions one feels when approaching an old concentration camp, and it seemed trite to try when I was writing my blog entry about it, so I just kept it casual, which also seemed trite but at least not pandering or patronizing. The truth is that when you're standing in that place, there's nothing, no treatment or response that seems appropriate, nothing that seems respectful other than silence. Neither laughter nor excessive somberness seemed quite right or natural for me, for reasons I'll not try to describe here and now. Standing where it happened, it seemed disgustingly insufficient to say atrocities took place, ignorant or insensitive to speak of the positive way some dealt with it, cold and clinical to speak of the historical aspects of it. It even seemed almost hideous for me to be questioning or analyzing my own emotional reaction because to do so was to distract from and severely disrespect those whose experiences I was merely imagining.
It seems like only one who was there has any right to speak of what it must have been like to be there. Only one who lost their dearest loved ones there has any right to say what the personal impact was or how to deal with such situations. Most experiences in life are like that, I suppose, but with something of this magnitude, I just don't even know what to do with it. The more I try to articulate this, the more inadequate and fumbling it seems. I don't intend to disrespect or offend in doing so, but I recognize that even publishing this just doesn't seem completely appropriate in some ways...but what is?
Some lines from a scene from The Reader came to mind as all of these thoughts flashed through my mind today in response to seeing those photos my friend took. The scene is a conversation between a Jewish woman who survived the camps and a male friend of a former female SS guard who, along with her fellow guards, was tried for leaving many Jews locked in a burning building during evacuation of a camp. Upon her death, the former SS guard leaves money to this Jewish woman, and the male friend has come to deliver the money to her. During the course of the conversation, she says the following to him:
"I'm not sure I can help you, Mr. Berg. Or rather, even if I could I'm not willing to.
...
People ask all the time what I learned in the camps. But the camps weren't therapy. What do you think these places were? Universities? We didn't go there to learn. One becomes very clear about these things.
...
What are you asking for? Forgiveness for her? Or do you just want to feel better yourself? My advice, go to the theatre, if you want catharsis. Please. Go to literature. Don't go to the camps. Nothing comes out of the camps. Nothing.
...
There's nothing I can do with this money. If I give it to anything associated with the extermination of the Jews, then to me it will seem like absolution and that is something I'm neither willing nor in a position to grant."
Upon entering Dachau, I had a very distinct, clear impression: the magnitude of the evil which shadowed it was beyond my comprehension, and no "lessons" should ever have to be learned in a way even remotely approaching it. I experienced a strange dissonance between my desire to "make it real" and never forget and my desire to respect the dead by not gawking like a tourist at such...sacred?...hallowed?...evil?...haunted?...ground. I thought of having read about the holocaust and "learning lessons" from the experiences I read about, and being there on that ground, it seemed so utterly trifling to even think about "lessons learned". Standing in the camp, imagining the terrible situation and incomprehensible magnitude of the lives affected there, even trying to be sensitive to the shadows of the past and the lives which ended or were permanently scarred, even looking on a sculptural monument to their memory, I couldn't help but question whether I should even be there in the first place, whether anyone not directly connected or affected had any right setting foot there. But then, to forbid it would be to keep it from becoming real to people for whom it might not otherwise.
I do think the camp was respectfully managed, not some sort of voyeuristic tourist trap. And I certainly wouldn't tell people they shouldn't go. I think they should, if only to let the reality of the past sink in for themselves, as much as visiting the shadows can do. I still question my reaction, my dissonance of conscience. But there are no words. There's nothing that's not trite. In order for words not to be hollow and disrespectful, it seems they must be spoken on a historical basis, which has its time and place, but analyzing the historical ramifications and "lessons" of it while standing where it took place seems callous and inhumane, wildly inappropriate in the face of their lives and memories... It's difficult to describe. The only place I've heard similar thoughts expressed is in the movie The History Boys, where two professors (T1 and T2) of differing instruction styles and a group of students (S1-S6) are all sitting together:
T1: I thought we might talk about the Holocaust.
T2: Good gracious! How can you teach the Holocaust?
T1: That would do as a question. Can you, should you, teach the Holocaust? Anybody? Come on.
S1: It has origins, it has consequences. It's a subject like any other.
S2: Not like any other, surely. Not like any other at all.
S1: No, but it's a topic.
T2: They go on school trips there nowadays, don't they? Auschwitz, Dachau. What's always concerned me is where do they have their sandwiches, drink their Cokes?
S3: The visitors' centre. It's like anywhere else.
T2: Yeah, but do they take pictures of each other there? Are they smiling? Do they hold hands? Nothing is appropriate.
S1: What if you were to write this was so far beyond one's experience, silence is the only proper response?
S4: Mr Hector's answer to lots of questions, though, wouldn't it, sir?
T2: Er, yes. Yes, Dakin, it is.
S4: "Whereof one cannot speak,thereof one must be silent." That's right, isn't it, sir? Wittgenstein.
T1: Yes, that's good.
T2: No, it's not good. It's flip, it's glib, it's journalism.
S4: It's you that taught us it.
T2: I didn't teach you. And Wittgenstein did not screw it out of his very guts
(stutters) in order for you to turn it into a dinky formula. Why can't we simply just condemn the camps outright as an unprecedented horror?
S3: There's no point, sir. Everybody will do that. "The camp's an event unlike any other." "The evil unprecedented." Et cetera, et cetera.
T2: No! Can't you see that even to say "et cetera" is... monstrous? "Et cetera" is what the Nazis would have said. The dead reduced to mere verbal abbreviation.
S3: All right, not et cetera. But given that the death camps are generally thought of as unique, wouldn't another approach be to show precedents? Put them, well, in proportion.
S2: Proportion?!
S4: Not proportion, then, but putting them in context.
S5: But to put something in context is a step towards saying it can be understood and explained. And if it can be explained, then it can be explained away.
S6: Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner.
T1: That's good, Posner.
S5: It isn't good! I mean it, sir.
S4: But when we talk about putting them in context, it's only the same as the dissolution of the monasteries. After all, monasteries had been dissolved before Henry VIII, dozens of them.
S5: Yes, but the difference is I didn't lose any relatives in the dissolution of the monasteries.
T1: Good point.
S2: You keep saying, "good point". Not 'good point', sir. True! To you, th-the Holocaust is just another topic on which we may or may not get a question.
T1: No! No! But this is history. Distance yourselves. Our perspective on the past alters. And looking back, immediately in front of us is dead ground - we don't see it. And because we don't see it, this means there is no period so remote as the recent past. And one of the historian's jobs is to anticipate what our perspective of that period will be. Even on the Holocaust.
(bell rings)
All that said, after my long-winded attempt to explain my thoughts, I'm back to sensing that there are just some things for which...there are no words. They must be experienced to be known, whether or not they are understood. Those things are sacred in their own way.
19 January 2010
Defending Traditional Marriage Unjustly
CONSERVATIVE GAY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS COME OUT
Margaret Hoover recently wrote an opinion piece called "Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality" on the Fox News web site which included the following passage:
I imagine she was partially emboldened by Ted Olson's recent article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", in Newsweek describing his reasons for fighting to overturn California's Prop 8. I recommend this article to all willing to hear his viewpoint. He does clearly state his opposition to the religiously-motivated view of same-sex relationships as inherently immoral, so there's probably a fundamental divide between him and many conservatives, but he is speaking from a politically conservative viewpoint. And though I take issue with a couple of his arguments, it's an interesting read with some valid arguments I think more opponents of same-sex marriage should consider, even if they don't change their ultimate position on the issue.
I think the majority of conservatives shrug and consider these people renegades (which is only attractive when they're renegading on the right side) and odd anomalies among conservatives. They're just vocal people who have been misled on an issue or don't grasp the moral profundity and ramifications of it. They lack the religious underpinnings to give them the big picture on the "real" consequences of the issue. They're no threat because true conservatives (or in other words, religiously motivated ones) will not be swayed by even the most prominent defectors from the defense of the nation's moral fiber. If I'm interpreting these voices correctly, this is very disheartening and saddening to me.
PRINCIPLES
Let me begin with a few points I want made clear:
UP FRONT: I DIDN'T AND DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8
That said, I have never supported Prop 8, nor have I actively opposed it. I've been very cautious around the issue, though if I were a Californian who had to vote, I would've voted against it to err on the side of individual and religious freedom. I admittedly was in a torn position. My church's leaders, from the very top, urged all members to do what they could to pass it. It was seen as a righteous cause to save this nation from moral deterioration and, ultimately, from its utter downfall. It was also considered by many to be a defense against an organized assault on religion and traditional values. Though the leadership made statements that support of Prop 8 was not required nor was it considered in worthiness, there was a definite sentiment in local wards (congregations) that if you spoke against it, you were on the fringe, apostate, unworthy, or otherwise sadly misguided. I believe many allowed themselves to be silenced by this social pressure, and discussions on the topic of same-sex marriage were often, in my experience, guided by champions of traditional marriage who paid little attention to their logical defense and relied on battle cries against moral degradation and calls to follow the prophet to rally the troops. Many ate up and proliferated the us-or-them fear tactics spread by ad campaigns, including one produced by a company sponsored by the church. I was disgusted, disappointed, and deeply saddened by the anger-motivated politics, the preemptive strikes based on fear, the dismissal of same-sex marriage as a farce, and the refusal to even consider compromise but to take the quick and easy road to security. I was also disappointed by many of the same things on the other side of the issue.
LEGISLATION SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOMS
My political philosophy, simple though it may be, and though its application may shift with understanding, is to defend the rights of the most while minding the welfare of the nation to the best of my understanding. But I like to think I believe in freedom before comfort, and in defending the rights of the most before protecting my own interests or defending my own values. I believe rights should be defended, and if giving everyone equal rights means someone's freedom or interests will be threatened, then that threat must be addressed and freedoms defended, but not by discrimination or by removing the rights of a select portion of the population, particularly based on traits they can't control.
THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
This leads to an interesting conflict in this issue: even if homosexuality is something people can't control or turn on or off (and I believe this is true in most or all cases), the kind of relationship they pursue is completely within their control, so if marriage, by definition, means "the union of a man and a woman", then gay people have every right to marriage like everyone else. It just may not bring them the happiness or fulfillment it brings the average "straight" person. So be it, they can choose not to pursue it but to seek committed relationships in other ways, such as civil unions (where they're legal). If they're not legal, then they can still choose to stay together. They don't need the government's tax benefits or recognition or insurance access to make their relationship meaningful or significant to them. Besides, those government benefits were designed around families and children, which is not what the vast majority of gay partnerships are about anyway, nor should they be because children should have the right to grow up with a mother and father where possible. And if a same-sex couple's church wants to sanctify their relationship in its eyes by marrying them, well...that's too bad because the government says the church can't do that because that's not what marriage is to begin with, and no church has the right to tell the government what it can or can't do, so the church is welcome to sanctify their relationship in some other way but without calling it marriage. Let them call it a God-sanctioned union if they want, but that shouldn't be forcing the government's hand because that would, in turn, affect all other churches and the tax system and insurance companies... The majority of the people have spoken in secular support of marriage being a heterosexual institution by definition, not just a "type" of relationship or a "contract" between any two consenting adults. It is an institution designed to foster an optimal family arrangement in which to raise children with male and female role models as mother and father, and even if many people today treat that institution like garbage and defile its original purpose, that doesn't justify changing its original definition to boot. Marriage's definition is at all vague or debatable only because it was culturally assumed to apply only to mixed-sex couples when it was instituted: there was no need for the clarification until gay people started wanting their version of it, sometimes encouraged by their churches' support.
OK, so that's a perspective I can understand. And it's not completely based on discrimination or assumptions about the motives of why gay people are seeking marriage. It's based on some pretty sound logic, I think, although I think it does make a stretch or leap here and there. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of this kind of argument, but what I do hear from opponents of same-sex marriage is that gay people are just trying to hijack marriage, or gay couples don't stay together anyway so marriage is a joke for them, or gay people don't want kids (and those who do shouldn't be allowed to have them because it's better for kids to be in orphanages or raised by single people than by a same-sex couple), or the nation will fall apart if we allow such perversion as homosexual marriages, or homosexuality will be taught in schools as a moral equivalent to mixed-sex couples, or the church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose its tax-exempt status, or the temples will close if we refuse to marry them, or...whatever. And yes, some of these arguments have some basis in truth, though I think most of the feared consequences would be defended and ironed out in the courts in the long run. And no, I don't consider any of them valid reasons to deny a portion of the population their rights. They are red herring. They are points to consider in working it all out, but in using these arguments to support banning same-sex marriage, what people are saying, at the root, is that it's OK to deny citizens rights as long as granting those rights makes life harder for me or goes against my religious beliefs. Shame on you! What country do you live in?! I've had to bite my tongue so many times as friends and family have stated their support for discriminatory legislation based on an "us or them" mentality: it's their rights or mine which have to go, so it's gonna be theirs. Is that freedom and democracy?
I understand much legislation has moral underpinnings, but I also believe most legislation is about defending the rights, freedoms, and safety of the nation's citizens. It's my belief that if you can't defend a law based on preserving rights, it should probably be discarded. I support laws against smoking in public places. It limits people's freedom to smoke where they choose, but it preserves the health and safety of those the smoker is forcing to breathe carcinogens. Now, perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps it's the responsibility of passersby to wear a mask if they don't like inhaling second-hand smoke. But it's the smoker who is creating the hazardous situation for others by smoking in a public place, so I believe the smoker shoulders the responsibility. Perhaps the real approach should be to promote laws allowing smoking only if some sort of special filter is placed on the end of the cigarette, preserving both the smoker's freedom and that of the passersby. I'd be open to that. So I admit there are times when laws become a bit...subjective as to what rights and safety they're protecting, but I believe the arguments should at least be framed in that light rather than saying, "I think smoking is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable to be around smokers, so I support making smoking in public illegal."
TYRANNY OF MAJORITY RULE
Please watch/listen to the following clip from 7:14 to about 8:10, which is from a speech by Ronald Reagan regarding the dangers of socialism and which contains a few gems of what I regard as sound political thought which relates to other issues:
I don't believe in "moral majority rule" in the sense it seems many conservative friends do. That, to me, is tyranny. Denying rights to some because you believe their decisions to be against God's will is shady territory, and I suspect many LDS people, for example, might change their tune if they lived in an Islamist nation, for example. If the population of the United States appeared to be tipping to a Wiccan majority, I suspect Christians everywhere would call for individual and religious freedom, not legislation of morality or religious values. I suspect they would say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and as long as we're not infringing on someone else's rights, we're OK." But when you are part of the moral majority, it's a cozy place to enforce your beliefs and standards through law without considering whether you're really protecting freedoms or just letting your moral superiority call the shots to protect your own interests at the expense of truly upholding the freedoms which allowed your religion to grow in the first place.
MY PLEA
To my friends and family who actively oppose same-sex marriage (which includes most of you who read my blog, I think): I'm not saying you have to support same-sex marriage to be logical or for me to see you as fair-minded. I'm not saying opposing legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to tyranny. Notice I've not actually spent much time here debating the validity of each claim or making the case for same-sex marriage because that's actually beside the point for my purposes here. I'm just saying please, please make sure your reasons are just, true, and virtuous. Please make sure you're not denying your brother, mother, son, or friend his or her right to marry his or her sweetheart for reasons that are not based on true principles you would support even if you were on the other side of them, being denied what you regarded as a right but others did not. Please make sure your own feelings about the morality of same-sex partnerships aren't your only motivation for supporting legislation like Prop 8. Please consider your arguments the next time you're making them, and imagine a member of another church or an atheist making them against your church's practices or your own decisions they believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the country. Please express your position with love, with rationale, and with patience, and consider the possibility that if you can't do that, you're possibly not secure enough in your position to be denying an entire subset of our nation their rights over it. Please recognize the social and very personal impact of this cultural battle and be sensitive how it will affects those you love who may be granted or denied the ability to be married by either their church or state, along with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. Please consider the possibility that this is not an all-or-nothing issue and that there are compromises to be found. Just consider it? I know it won't change your mind, for most of you, but it will focus on the real issues and hopefully minimize unnecessary animosity and division.
Margaret Hoover recently wrote an opinion piece called "Why I'm Joining the Fight for Marriage Equality" on the Fox News web site which included the following passage:
"Some Republicans support gay rights, but prefer progress through legislative action or majority rule at the ballot box, rather than judicial action. But what if a democratic election imposes mandates that violate a citizen’s constitutional freedom? In the event that majority rule insufficiently protects individual liberty, our system of checks and balances puts forth that it is the role of the courts, to guarantee and protect the rights to individual Americans.
That’s why the Supreme Court, in 1967 Loving v. Virginia, legalized interracial marriage –six years after our current president was born to an interracial couple. At that time 73% of the population opposed 'miscegenation.' How long would it have taken to change popular opinion, for the minority to democratically win their constitutional rights? As Martin Luther King, Jr. famously asserted, 'Justice delayed is justice denied.'"
I imagine she was partially emboldened by Ted Olson's recent article, "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage", in Newsweek describing his reasons for fighting to overturn California's Prop 8. I recommend this article to all willing to hear his viewpoint. He does clearly state his opposition to the religiously-motivated view of same-sex relationships as inherently immoral, so there's probably a fundamental divide between him and many conservatives, but he is speaking from a politically conservative viewpoint. And though I take issue with a couple of his arguments, it's an interesting read with some valid arguments I think more opponents of same-sex marriage should consider, even if they don't change their ultimate position on the issue.
I think the majority of conservatives shrug and consider these people renegades (which is only attractive when they're renegading on the right side) and odd anomalies among conservatives. They're just vocal people who have been misled on an issue or don't grasp the moral profundity and ramifications of it. They lack the religious underpinnings to give them the big picture on the "real" consequences of the issue. They're no threat because true conservatives (or in other words, religiously motivated ones) will not be swayed by even the most prominent defectors from the defense of the nation's moral fiber. If I'm interpreting these voices correctly, this is very disheartening and saddening to me.
PRINCIPLES
Let me begin with a few points I want made clear:
- I do not support change for change's sake. I think blind "progress" without regard to consequence is irresponsible and haphazard.
- I do believe the rights and freedoms of religions are attacked by a few ill-willed anti-religion crusaders and that religions need to stand up for religious freedom.
- I do believe children have a right to opportunity and to be raised by loving parents who will teach them true principles of happiness, and I think the ideal family unit includes a mother and a father, all else being equal (which it never is, but for the sake of argument...).
UP FRONT: I DIDN'T AND DON'T SUPPORT PROP 8
That said, I have never supported Prop 8, nor have I actively opposed it. I've been very cautious around the issue, though if I were a Californian who had to vote, I would've voted against it to err on the side of individual and religious freedom. I admittedly was in a torn position. My church's leaders, from the very top, urged all members to do what they could to pass it. It was seen as a righteous cause to save this nation from moral deterioration and, ultimately, from its utter downfall. It was also considered by many to be a defense against an organized assault on religion and traditional values. Though the leadership made statements that support of Prop 8 was not required nor was it considered in worthiness, there was a definite sentiment in local wards (congregations) that if you spoke against it, you were on the fringe, apostate, unworthy, or otherwise sadly misguided. I believe many allowed themselves to be silenced by this social pressure, and discussions on the topic of same-sex marriage were often, in my experience, guided by champions of traditional marriage who paid little attention to their logical defense and relied on battle cries against moral degradation and calls to follow the prophet to rally the troops. Many ate up and proliferated the us-or-them fear tactics spread by ad campaigns, including one produced by a company sponsored by the church. I was disgusted, disappointed, and deeply saddened by the anger-motivated politics, the preemptive strikes based on fear, the dismissal of same-sex marriage as a farce, and the refusal to even consider compromise but to take the quick and easy road to security. I was also disappointed by many of the same things on the other side of the issue.
LEGISLATION SHOULD PROTECT FREEDOMS
My political philosophy, simple though it may be, and though its application may shift with understanding, is to defend the rights of the most while minding the welfare of the nation to the best of my understanding. But I like to think I believe in freedom before comfort, and in defending the rights of the most before protecting my own interests or defending my own values. I believe rights should be defended, and if giving everyone equal rights means someone's freedom or interests will be threatened, then that threat must be addressed and freedoms defended, but not by discrimination or by removing the rights of a select portion of the population, particularly based on traits they can't control.
THE CASE AGAINST SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
This leads to an interesting conflict in this issue: even if homosexuality is something people can't control or turn on or off (and I believe this is true in most or all cases), the kind of relationship they pursue is completely within their control, so if marriage, by definition, means "the union of a man and a woman", then gay people have every right to marriage like everyone else. It just may not bring them the happiness or fulfillment it brings the average "straight" person. So be it, they can choose not to pursue it but to seek committed relationships in other ways, such as civil unions (where they're legal). If they're not legal, then they can still choose to stay together. They don't need the government's tax benefits or recognition or insurance access to make their relationship meaningful or significant to them. Besides, those government benefits were designed around families and children, which is not what the vast majority of gay partnerships are about anyway, nor should they be because children should have the right to grow up with a mother and father where possible. And if a same-sex couple's church wants to sanctify their relationship in its eyes by marrying them, well...that's too bad because the government says the church can't do that because that's not what marriage is to begin with, and no church has the right to tell the government what it can or can't do, so the church is welcome to sanctify their relationship in some other way but without calling it marriage. Let them call it a God-sanctioned union if they want, but that shouldn't be forcing the government's hand because that would, in turn, affect all other churches and the tax system and insurance companies... The majority of the people have spoken in secular support of marriage being a heterosexual institution by definition, not just a "type" of relationship or a "contract" between any two consenting adults. It is an institution designed to foster an optimal family arrangement in which to raise children with male and female role models as mother and father, and even if many people today treat that institution like garbage and defile its original purpose, that doesn't justify changing its original definition to boot. Marriage's definition is at all vague or debatable only because it was culturally assumed to apply only to mixed-sex couples when it was instituted: there was no need for the clarification until gay people started wanting their version of it, sometimes encouraged by their churches' support.
OK, so that's a perspective I can understand. And it's not completely based on discrimination or assumptions about the motives of why gay people are seeking marriage. It's based on some pretty sound logic, I think, although I think it does make a stretch or leap here and there. Unfortunately, I don't hear much of this kind of argument, but what I do hear from opponents of same-sex marriage is that gay people are just trying to hijack marriage, or gay couples don't stay together anyway so marriage is a joke for them, or gay people don't want kids (and those who do shouldn't be allowed to have them because it's better for kids to be in orphanages or raised by single people than by a same-sex couple), or the nation will fall apart if we allow such perversion as homosexual marriages, or homosexuality will be taught in schools as a moral equivalent to mixed-sex couples, or the church will be forced to marry same-sex couples or lose its tax-exempt status, or the temples will close if we refuse to marry them, or...whatever. And yes, some of these arguments have some basis in truth, though I think most of the feared consequences would be defended and ironed out in the courts in the long run. And no, I don't consider any of them valid reasons to deny a portion of the population their rights. They are red herring. They are points to consider in working it all out, but in using these arguments to support banning same-sex marriage, what people are saying, at the root, is that it's OK to deny citizens rights as long as granting those rights makes life harder for me or goes against my religious beliefs. Shame on you! What country do you live in?! I've had to bite my tongue so many times as friends and family have stated their support for discriminatory legislation based on an "us or them" mentality: it's their rights or mine which have to go, so it's gonna be theirs. Is that freedom and democracy?
I understand much legislation has moral underpinnings, but I also believe most legislation is about defending the rights, freedoms, and safety of the nation's citizens. It's my belief that if you can't defend a law based on preserving rights, it should probably be discarded. I support laws against smoking in public places. It limits people's freedom to smoke where they choose, but it preserves the health and safety of those the smoker is forcing to breathe carcinogens. Now, perhaps I'm wrong in this. Perhaps it's the responsibility of passersby to wear a mask if they don't like inhaling second-hand smoke. But it's the smoker who is creating the hazardous situation for others by smoking in a public place, so I believe the smoker shoulders the responsibility. Perhaps the real approach should be to promote laws allowing smoking only if some sort of special filter is placed on the end of the cigarette, preserving both the smoker's freedom and that of the passersby. I'd be open to that. So I admit there are times when laws become a bit...subjective as to what rights and safety they're protecting, but I believe the arguments should at least be framed in that light rather than saying, "I think smoking is wrong, and it makes me uncomfortable to be around smokers, so I support making smoking in public illegal."
TYRANNY OF MAJORITY RULE
Please watch/listen to the following clip from 7:14 to about 8:10, which is from a speech by Ronald Reagan regarding the dangers of socialism and which contains a few gems of what I regard as sound political thought which relates to other issues:
I don't believe in "moral majority rule" in the sense it seems many conservative friends do. That, to me, is tyranny. Denying rights to some because you believe their decisions to be against God's will is shady territory, and I suspect many LDS people, for example, might change their tune if they lived in an Islamist nation, for example. If the population of the United States appeared to be tipping to a Wiccan majority, I suspect Christians everywhere would call for individual and religious freedom, not legislation of morality or religious values. I suspect they would say, "You do your thing, and I'll do mine, and as long as we're not infringing on someone else's rights, we're OK." But when you are part of the moral majority, it's a cozy place to enforce your beliefs and standards through law without considering whether you're really protecting freedoms or just letting your moral superiority call the shots to protect your own interests at the expense of truly upholding the freedoms which allowed your religion to grow in the first place.
MY PLEA
To my friends and family who actively oppose same-sex marriage (which includes most of you who read my blog, I think): I'm not saying you have to support same-sex marriage to be logical or for me to see you as fair-minded. I'm not saying opposing legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to tyranny. Notice I've not actually spent much time here debating the validity of each claim or making the case for same-sex marriage because that's actually beside the point for my purposes here. I'm just saying please, please make sure your reasons are just, true, and virtuous. Please make sure you're not denying your brother, mother, son, or friend his or her right to marry his or her sweetheart for reasons that are not based on true principles you would support even if you were on the other side of them, being denied what you regarded as a right but others did not. Please make sure your own feelings about the morality of same-sex partnerships aren't your only motivation for supporting legislation like Prop 8. Please consider your arguments the next time you're making them, and imagine a member of another church or an atheist making them against your church's practices or your own decisions they believe to be detrimental to the moral fiber of the country. Please express your position with love, with rationale, and with patience, and consider the possibility that if you can't do that, you're possibly not secure enough in your position to be denying an entire subset of our nation their rights over it. Please recognize the social and very personal impact of this cultural battle and be sensitive how it will affects those you love who may be granted or denied the ability to be married by either their church or state, along with its accompanying rights and responsibilities. Please consider the possibility that this is not an all-or-nothing issue and that there are compromises to be found. Just consider it? I know it won't change your mind, for most of you, but it will focus on the real issues and hopefully minimize unnecessary animosity and division.
15 January 2010
Let's See If We May Not Eff It
I've been a fan of Douglas Adams' work for several years now. We would listen, as a family, to his books in audio form during road trips. We listened to other books as well, but the Hitchhiker's Guide and Dirk Gently series were my favorites. I recently listened to The Salmon of Doubt unabridged, borrowed from the library, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Among the many gems of thought to be found in it was the following quote which not only points out a remarkably common logical fallacy but summed up a lot of thoughts I'd been having on...well...some stuff:
Maybe I'll expound another time, but for now, I'll just include a few other quotes I enjoy from interviews and his books:
"Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!'"
Maybe I'll expound another time, but for now, I'll just include a few other quotes I enjoy from interviews and his books:
"A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.'"
"We don't have to save the world. The world is big enough to look after itself. What we have to be concerned about is whether or not the world we live in will be capable of sustaining us in it."
"If you try and take a cat apart to see how it works, the first thing you have on your hands is a non-working cat."
"Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable, let's prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all."
"(..) Sir Isaac Newton, renowned inventor of the milled-edge coin and the catflap!"
"The what?" said Richard.
"The catflap! A device of the utmost cunning, perspicuity and invention. It is a door within a door, you see, a ..."
"Yes," said Richard, "there was also the small matter of gravity."
"Gravity," said Dirk with a slightly dismissed shrug, "yes, there was that as well, I suppose. Though that, of course, was merely a discovery. It was there to be discovered." ...
"You see?" he said dropping his cigarette butt, "They even keep it on at weekends. Someone was bound to notice sooner or later. But the catflap ... ah, there is a very different matter. Invention, pure creative invention. It is a door within a door, you see."
"I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be."
"The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks."
"For Children: You will need to know the difference between Friday and a fried egg. It's quite a simple difference, but an important one. Friday comes at the end of the week, whereas a fried egg comes out of a chicken. Like most things, of course, it isn't quite that simple. The fried egg isn't properly a fried egg until it's been put in a frying pan and fried. This is something you wouldn't do to a Friday, of course, though you might do it on a Friday. You can also fry eggs on a Thursday, if you like, or on a cooker. It's all rather complicated, but it makes a kind of sense if you think about it for a while."
"All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others."
"Anything that is in the world when you're born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. Anything that's invented between when you're fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day."
"Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn’t necessarily do it in chronological order, though."
"There is a theory which states that if anyone discovers just exactly what the universe is for and why we are here, that it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. Then there is a theory which states that this has already happened."
"Apparently, we need to think about the building being inhabited by dragons and look at it in terms of how a dragon would move around it. So, if a dragon wouldn’t be happy in the house, you have to put a red fish bowl here or a window there. This sounds like complete and utter nonsense, because anything involving dragons must be nonsense—there aren’t any dragons, so any theory based on how dragons behave is nonsense. What are these silly people doing, imagining that dragons can tell you how to build your house?"
"I love deadlines; I love the whooshing sound they make as they pass overhead."
"The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair."
"The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."
"[Arthur Dent] hoped and prayed there wasn't an afterlife. Then, realizing the contradiction, he merely hoped there wasn't an afterlife."
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
"The last time anybody made a list of the top hundred character attributes of New Yorkers, common sense snuck in at number 79."
"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws."
"On the way back, they sang a number of tuneful and reflective songs on the subjects of peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life, and the obliteration of all other life forms."
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
"God's final message to Creation: Sorry for the inconvenience."
14 December 2009
The Demise of Friendship?
Someone posted an article on Facebook (ironically enough) about the change in or decline of friendship as a cultural phenomenon, particularly as it relates to trends perpetuated (or reflected?) by such social networking sites as Facebook and MySpace. I think everyone interested in "real" relationships but wondering why they can't seem to really connect with others should read it:
Faux Friendship
I agree with so much of what the author is saying about the nature of friendship and how real intimacy seems to be on the decline, and how the loss of classical, or romantic, friendship, the kind about which poets used to write, is tragic and a reflection of an increasingly impersonal society full of people seemingly phobic of true intimacy while clawing at it in futile ways.
I particularly agree with the argument that friendship used to be a relationship meant for mutual improvement, a true, hard-won intimacy strong enough to be truly honest and open in helping bring out each other's best and grow together. Friendship was a dedication and investment, not a mere affinity. Friendship was personal and intuitive, not a manipulative checklist of dirt one has on the other. It was a support for weathering storms, not a relationship which loses its usefulness when the "fun" wears off. True friendship was considered a lasting, committed, mutually beneficial, intimate relationship, not the fluffy playmateship on which so many seem fixated today. With the classical kind of friendships, who could be truly lonely?
On the other hand, maybe that is a romantic or exaggerated notion, that friendship "used to be" something it's not today. Maybe the form of finding such friendships has simply changed. Maybe people in the romantic past also struggled to find true connection but for an entirely different set of reasons, such as having to hide socially unacceptable parts of themselves from even their closest friends. Maybe friendship has made strides in some ways even while declining in others. Maybe it's not that different, fundamentally, from how it's always been. But I'm inclined to agree that it seems like friendship is cheaper today, hollower, and tinny like most of what comes out of Hollywood. I strive for better. I prefer friends who will not tell me I'm perfect while watching me march into a pit of snakes or desecrate my integrity in violation of my own values and principles. That's not to say I want preachy friends or friends who think their values and principles should be mine, in the same priority they hold them. I just don't think anyone who always says, "You're perfect the way you are, and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid," can be trusted, and I have to trust my friends.
What I disagree with in this article is that Facebook is, in and of itself, some kind of friendship destroyer, a monster hacking away at the roots of intimacy. Facebook is a tool. It is admittedly a tool many use for self-flattery, false celebrity, professional and social networking, self-marketing, divulgence of information nobody needs or wants to hear (I don't care what genitalia you would be if your personality were made into a body part, for example), or amassing a collection of "friends" which should more accurately be called "people with whom I have some kind of connection." But blaming Facebook for the way people use it is a bit like blaming higher education for snobbery and elitism, or religion for genocide and hatred. It may make sense on a social level, depending on your perspective, but the thing isn't the cause or the problem: it's how it's interpreted and used.
I, for one, only add people on Facebook whom I've met and connected with on some level. I occasionally have approved requests from people I only met once and don't necessarily expect to get to know better (and I adjust their access to my profile accordingly), and I have approved a very small number of people I hadn't yet met, usually spouses of friends or some similar level of incidental connection, but whom I later meet. Have there been hotties or interesting people I'd like to add and become incidentally familiar with by window shopping their Facebook profile before deciding whether to meet in person? Yeah, definitely. But I've refused to do it on principle. I've just never really wanted to meet people that way, for the most part.
But what of people who do meet that way? Does the use of a tool in initial acquaintance preclude the development of intimacy? Does having 500 Facebook friends automatically rule out the possibility of selectively becoming close with a few of them? Do the benefits of maintaining many connections and acquaintances outweigh the loss of time with a few close friends? Is there a balance to be struck? Can I maintain incidental contact through the efficiency of sites like Facebook even while investing time in my more intimate friendships sufficient to develop rich and meaningful relationships with them? I think so. Have I found that balance? Probably not. But I'm working on it. Live life deliberately, right? Nobody's perfectly balanced. It seems the cultural scale is tilted heavily towards hollow relationships, but I'm trying to keep my scale where I want it: leaning towards the intimacy even while maintaining a useful and productive number of casual friendships and acquaintances, some of which may someday become more intimate friendships.
Yes, friendships may wax and wane. And with the mobility of our society, people moving around from place to place in search of education and work, that's bound to happen. If we all stayed put more often, as I think old-timers did, we'd have more opportunity for lasting, life-long friendships, which I think is a beautiful thing. But with mobility comes more contact and more opportunities to learn from more people with more perspectives. Fortunately, tools like Facebook help us remember friends who are distant and more efficiently see what they're up to and share our adventures with them. Yes, it can be painful to see their lives marching on while you start from scratch, but not being aware of it doesn't stop it from happening, and you can control whether these things are shoved in your face or quietly happening out of view if you want to. Learn the tool, use it well. Trade-offs. Balance.
One point made in the article I found particularly interesting is that of memories being sort of whitewashed by the present. It's poignantly stated, but I'm not sure I completely buy it. Having "reconnected" with childhood or otherwise years-past friends, in that electronic, online way, I've discovered we remember some things differently, and we remember different things, and re-evaluating my mental snapshots in that light has expanded and refined my perception of those memories. I would rather see clearly than remember it however I find most comfortable, but there's more to it than that. There may be touchy-feely, emotional motives to remember things how we want to, or comfort in leaving people firmly in the past where they "belong", but I'm fascinated by people and relationships and development, and I find it interesting to hear how they remember things, or to see what they're up to these days and how they seem to have changed or remained the same, even if I only look at their profile once. I see my childhood friends pop up on Facebook, clubbing in New York, or living in a trailer in rural Idaho, or playing with their two or six children, and I consciously know I no longer really "know" them, but I like knowing, at the very least, that they're alive somewhere, carrying memories of me as I carry memories of them. In some way, for better or worse, we've been a part of each other's development and memory, even if only incidentally. It reminds me to make the most of today, to be a positive memory for today's friends and coworkers. And then, when I'm tired of seeing information about them, I hide them from my feed and only go back when, one day, I think, "I wonder whatever happened to So-and-so. Oh yeah, they're on Facebook, let's see." A minute later, I've moved on, but for that minute, a part of my life that contributed to who I am today was brought back into view, sparked by information and pictures that elicited memories the mere incidental thought never would have. Am I a changed man because I spent a minute looking at the profile of a friend I've not spoken with in years? Maybe not. Could I have spent that minute calling a loved one I am close with? Yes. Would I have? Probably not. But the perspective--the little adjustment, the reminder of one's influence, the reminder of who you used to be and how things have changed--can, if you allow it, be useful.
In short, I fully support the caution flags raised by the author, and I share the author's lament for the nature of friendship in our culture, but I think deleting your Facebook account in response would be extreme and silly. While I think the author makes some scapegoating leaps, I really enjoyed the article and recommend it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have plans with friends to spend time, in person, sharing our stories and updates, seeing what's behind the words in each other's eyes and gestures, sharing energy and sensation, and just being together. I think much of what the author is trying to say is summed up in a quote from one of my favorite movies, Good Will Hunting:
Faux Friendship
I agree with so much of what the author is saying about the nature of friendship and how real intimacy seems to be on the decline, and how the loss of classical, or romantic, friendship, the kind about which poets used to write, is tragic and a reflection of an increasingly impersonal society full of people seemingly phobic of true intimacy while clawing at it in futile ways.
I particularly agree with the argument that friendship used to be a relationship meant for mutual improvement, a true, hard-won intimacy strong enough to be truly honest and open in helping bring out each other's best and grow together. Friendship was a dedication and investment, not a mere affinity. Friendship was personal and intuitive, not a manipulative checklist of dirt one has on the other. It was a support for weathering storms, not a relationship which loses its usefulness when the "fun" wears off. True friendship was considered a lasting, committed, mutually beneficial, intimate relationship, not the fluffy playmateship on which so many seem fixated today. With the classical kind of friendships, who could be truly lonely?
On the other hand, maybe that is a romantic or exaggerated notion, that friendship "used to be" something it's not today. Maybe the form of finding such friendships has simply changed. Maybe people in the romantic past also struggled to find true connection but for an entirely different set of reasons, such as having to hide socially unacceptable parts of themselves from even their closest friends. Maybe friendship has made strides in some ways even while declining in others. Maybe it's not that different, fundamentally, from how it's always been. But I'm inclined to agree that it seems like friendship is cheaper today, hollower, and tinny like most of what comes out of Hollywood. I strive for better. I prefer friends who will not tell me I'm perfect while watching me march into a pit of snakes or desecrate my integrity in violation of my own values and principles. That's not to say I want preachy friends or friends who think their values and principles should be mine, in the same priority they hold them. I just don't think anyone who always says, "You're perfect the way you are, and anyone who doesn't see that is stupid," can be trusted, and I have to trust my friends.
What I disagree with in this article is that Facebook is, in and of itself, some kind of friendship destroyer, a monster hacking away at the roots of intimacy. Facebook is a tool. It is admittedly a tool many use for self-flattery, false celebrity, professional and social networking, self-marketing, divulgence of information nobody needs or wants to hear (I don't care what genitalia you would be if your personality were made into a body part, for example), or amassing a collection of "friends" which should more accurately be called "people with whom I have some kind of connection." But blaming Facebook for the way people use it is a bit like blaming higher education for snobbery and elitism, or religion for genocide and hatred. It may make sense on a social level, depending on your perspective, but the thing isn't the cause or the problem: it's how it's interpreted and used.
I, for one, only add people on Facebook whom I've met and connected with on some level. I occasionally have approved requests from people I only met once and don't necessarily expect to get to know better (and I adjust their access to my profile accordingly), and I have approved a very small number of people I hadn't yet met, usually spouses of friends or some similar level of incidental connection, but whom I later meet. Have there been hotties or interesting people I'd like to add and become incidentally familiar with by window shopping their Facebook profile before deciding whether to meet in person? Yeah, definitely. But I've refused to do it on principle. I've just never really wanted to meet people that way, for the most part.
But what of people who do meet that way? Does the use of a tool in initial acquaintance preclude the development of intimacy? Does having 500 Facebook friends automatically rule out the possibility of selectively becoming close with a few of them? Do the benefits of maintaining many connections and acquaintances outweigh the loss of time with a few close friends? Is there a balance to be struck? Can I maintain incidental contact through the efficiency of sites like Facebook even while investing time in my more intimate friendships sufficient to develop rich and meaningful relationships with them? I think so. Have I found that balance? Probably not. But I'm working on it. Live life deliberately, right? Nobody's perfectly balanced. It seems the cultural scale is tilted heavily towards hollow relationships, but I'm trying to keep my scale where I want it: leaning towards the intimacy even while maintaining a useful and productive number of casual friendships and acquaintances, some of which may someday become more intimate friendships.
Yes, friendships may wax and wane. And with the mobility of our society, people moving around from place to place in search of education and work, that's bound to happen. If we all stayed put more often, as I think old-timers did, we'd have more opportunity for lasting, life-long friendships, which I think is a beautiful thing. But with mobility comes more contact and more opportunities to learn from more people with more perspectives. Fortunately, tools like Facebook help us remember friends who are distant and more efficiently see what they're up to and share our adventures with them. Yes, it can be painful to see their lives marching on while you start from scratch, but not being aware of it doesn't stop it from happening, and you can control whether these things are shoved in your face or quietly happening out of view if you want to. Learn the tool, use it well. Trade-offs. Balance.
One point made in the article I found particularly interesting is that of memories being sort of whitewashed by the present. It's poignantly stated, but I'm not sure I completely buy it. Having "reconnected" with childhood or otherwise years-past friends, in that electronic, online way, I've discovered we remember some things differently, and we remember different things, and re-evaluating my mental snapshots in that light has expanded and refined my perception of those memories. I would rather see clearly than remember it however I find most comfortable, but there's more to it than that. There may be touchy-feely, emotional motives to remember things how we want to, or comfort in leaving people firmly in the past where they "belong", but I'm fascinated by people and relationships and development, and I find it interesting to hear how they remember things, or to see what they're up to these days and how they seem to have changed or remained the same, even if I only look at their profile once. I see my childhood friends pop up on Facebook, clubbing in New York, or living in a trailer in rural Idaho, or playing with their two or six children, and I consciously know I no longer really "know" them, but I like knowing, at the very least, that they're alive somewhere, carrying memories of me as I carry memories of them. In some way, for better or worse, we've been a part of each other's development and memory, even if only incidentally. It reminds me to make the most of today, to be a positive memory for today's friends and coworkers. And then, when I'm tired of seeing information about them, I hide them from my feed and only go back when, one day, I think, "I wonder whatever happened to So-and-so. Oh yeah, they're on Facebook, let's see." A minute later, I've moved on, but for that minute, a part of my life that contributed to who I am today was brought back into view, sparked by information and pictures that elicited memories the mere incidental thought never would have. Am I a changed man because I spent a minute looking at the profile of a friend I've not spoken with in years? Maybe not. Could I have spent that minute calling a loved one I am close with? Yes. Would I have? Probably not. But the perspective--the little adjustment, the reminder of one's influence, the reminder of who you used to be and how things have changed--can, if you allow it, be useful.
In short, I fully support the caution flags raised by the author, and I share the author's lament for the nature of friendship in our culture, but I think deleting your Facebook account in response would be extreme and silly. While I think the author makes some scapegoating leaps, I really enjoyed the article and recommend it. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have plans with friends to spend time, in person, sharing our stories and updates, seeing what's behind the words in each other's eyes and gestures, sharing energy and sensation, and just being together. I think much of what the author is trying to say is summed up in a quote from one of my favorite movies, Good Will Hunting:
So if I asked you about art, you'd probably give me the skinny on every art book ever written. Michelangelo, you know a lot about him. Life's work, political aspirations, him and the pope, sexual orientation, the whole works, right? But I'll bet you can't tell me what it smells like in the Sistine Chapel.
29 September 2009
Preach On!
I think sometimes people find the "clarity" of clarion-call preachers of politics or religion refreshing not because what they say is true and the issue really is as simple as they're breaking it down to be but because it feels nice to be able to frame things simply and without subtlety or attention not just to "different" points of view but to many angles and equally valid facets of a situation. I fear what this country would become if it were governed by those who are so tired of annoying, nitpicky multiculturalism and tiring "dialog" that they're ready to just slap the rules down for the sake of "getting things done" and tell everyone to deal with it.
(Note: this is a journal entry from June, but it's still relevant.)
(Note: this is a journal entry from June, but it's still relevant.)
09 September 2009
Save Dolphins...And Sharks
I love dolphins. I find them amazing and inspiring. I want to help preserve them. This has all been brought to my mind again by the recently released movie, The Cove, which I have yet to see but really want to if I can find someone to go with me. Otherwise, I'll wait for the DVD.
The Cove exposes the practice of drive hunting by filming what they weren't supposed to: a drive hunt into a cove at Taiji, Japan. This is one of many such sites of similar hunts worldwide, but none so large as this, the exposition of which has led to controversy and outcries worldwide against the practice.
I see this practice, based on what I've read, as a money-making scheme under the guise of cultural tradition or food supply needs. After all, dolphin meat has been deemed by some researchers to be unsafe for consumption by children and pregnant women and unsafe for frequent consumption by anyone due to high levels of mercury, cadmium, DDT, and PCBs in their meat and blubber. So needing them as a food source doesn't make much sense. Why capture and kill them then? They're captured for sale to aquariums or "dolphinariums" around the world. AZA-accredited institutions are required, as far as I know from working with them, to collect animals only by humane means and from reputable sources (though some marine mammal specialists believe dolphins should never be kept in captivity), but most of the places these dolphins are going to likely put them in terribly sub-par living conditions, where they're likely to die prematurely in captivity while making a buck for their caretakers. They're also killed for various reasons, including meat for Japanese school children, despite the health warnings.
Still, with clear reasons to decry the brutal and inhumane round-ups and massacres, I have the lingering question: why save the dolphins? I think enough of us have seen dolphin shows and cute dolphin movies to have a sort of cute-and-cuddly love for them. We've also read the reports of dolphins surrounding and rescuing surfers from shark attacks, making them our literal heroes of the ocean. And many of us just "feel" an inexplicable kinship or connection with dolphins. They're special, and to kill a dolphin feels somewhat like killing a unicorn: it removes some purity and virtue from the world.
Yet I can't shake such questions as the following:
My conclusion so far is that dolphins should be protected from extinction or overhunting, and hunting practices should be humane, and The Cove seems to expose some significantly problematic and inhumane practices that need to change. I believe most trafficking of live dolphins is outrageous and terrible and should not be supported. Please, before you go pay to swim with dolphins, investigate the establishment to make sure the animals are either resident wild dolphins or very well cared-for and ethically caught and purchased. Many or most are none of the above.
And I guess it's not dolphins' fault if they're cute and lovable and therefore get more attention from us to "save" them, but please consider offering equal support for threatened shark populations, a phenomenon which truly does have undeniable environmental impact, especially considering how extremely slowly shark populations regrow.
Watch these videos as an intro to the truth about sharks and their rapidly dwindling numbers:
For more information on the need to support shark conservation efforts, see the following web sites:
National Aquarium in Baltimore blog - S.O.S. - Save Our Sharks
Washington Post - Shark attack survivors join fight to save sharks
Facebook Cause to Save the Sharks
Shark Research Institute
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
The Cove exposes the practice of drive hunting by filming what they weren't supposed to: a drive hunt into a cove at Taiji, Japan. This is one of many such sites of similar hunts worldwide, but none so large as this, the exposition of which has led to controversy and outcries worldwide against the practice.
I see this practice, based on what I've read, as a money-making scheme under the guise of cultural tradition or food supply needs. After all, dolphin meat has been deemed by some researchers to be unsafe for consumption by children and pregnant women and unsafe for frequent consumption by anyone due to high levels of mercury, cadmium, DDT, and PCBs in their meat and blubber. So needing them as a food source doesn't make much sense. Why capture and kill them then? They're captured for sale to aquariums or "dolphinariums" around the world. AZA-accredited institutions are required, as far as I know from working with them, to collect animals only by humane means and from reputable sources (though some marine mammal specialists believe dolphins should never be kept in captivity), but most of the places these dolphins are going to likely put them in terribly sub-par living conditions, where they're likely to die prematurely in captivity while making a buck for their caretakers. They're also killed for various reasons, including meat for Japanese school children, despite the health warnings.
Still, with clear reasons to decry the brutal and inhumane round-ups and massacres, I have the lingering question: why save the dolphins? I think enough of us have seen dolphin shows and cute dolphin movies to have a sort of cute-and-cuddly love for them. We've also read the reports of dolphins surrounding and rescuing surfers from shark attacks, making them our literal heroes of the ocean. And many of us just "feel" an inexplicable kinship or connection with dolphins. They're special, and to kill a dolphin feels somewhat like killing a unicorn: it removes some purity and virtue from the world.
Yet I can't shake such questions as the following:
- If dolphins were spiny and ugly and weren't named Flipper, would we care? If we didn't care, would the need to protect them be any less?
- If we watched an expose portraying the humane slaughtering process of cows, how many of us would clap our hands in delight and run out to eagerly eat a nice, juicy steak?
- If dolphin populations weren't controlled by such hunts, would their increased numbers lead to overconsumption of fish populations, resulting in severely negative economic and/or environmental impact?
- Since none of the species being hunted in Taiji, except one, is considered endangered, is there really an environmental or ecological reason to oppose the hunting, or is this feel-good activism because we just "love" dolphins more than, say, sharks (which, by the way, are severely impacted by hunting practices [particularly finning], especially in Asia, but have far fewer affectionate friends to join their cause)?
- If their methods were more humane, would we be satisfied and say, "OK, continue killing hundreds of dolphins humanely every year." In other words, is it the killing or the method of killing we're supposed to oppose, here? Sometimes that doesn't seem clear.
My conclusion so far is that dolphins should be protected from extinction or overhunting, and hunting practices should be humane, and The Cove seems to expose some significantly problematic and inhumane practices that need to change. I believe most trafficking of live dolphins is outrageous and terrible and should not be supported. Please, before you go pay to swim with dolphins, investigate the establishment to make sure the animals are either resident wild dolphins or very well cared-for and ethically caught and purchased. Many or most are none of the above.
And I guess it's not dolphins' fault if they're cute and lovable and therefore get more attention from us to "save" them, but please consider offering equal support for threatened shark populations, a phenomenon which truly does have undeniable environmental impact, especially considering how extremely slowly shark populations regrow.
Watch these videos as an intro to the truth about sharks and their rapidly dwindling numbers:
For more information on the need to support shark conservation efforts, see the following web sites:
National Aquarium in Baltimore blog - S.O.S. - Save Our Sharks
Washington Post - Shark attack survivors join fight to save sharks
Facebook Cause to Save the Sharks
Shark Research Institute
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
08 September 2009
The Happiness Hypothesis
I've been reading a lot, today, about politics and happiness and the relationship between ideology and happiness, etc. While discussing it with a friend, he reminded me of a recent episode of Radio West in which Doug Fabrizio interviewed the author of The Happiness Hypothesis, Jonathan Haidt, who explores a scientific perspective behind happiness. He is a self-described atheist and liberal who, incidentally, explores why conservatives are generally happier than liberals.
Interesting stuff. I just ordered the book from Amazon.com.
Interesting stuff. I just ordered the book from Amazon.com.
16 August 2009
Entrenchment
Hey, Utah Anti-Mormons, making sure people know you're not LDS needn't mean being crude, immodest, cantankerous, unkempt, disdainful and bitter towards religion, or promiscuous.
Hey, "Utah Mormons", making sure people know you're faithful LDS needn't mean being haughty, frumpy, artificially perky, robotic, disdainful and bitter towards dissidents, or prudish.
Hey, "Utah Mormons", making sure people know you're faithful LDS needn't mean being haughty, frumpy, artificially perky, robotic, disdainful and bitter towards dissidents, or prudish.
07 August 2009
Voting for a Farmer's Market
I had to do it. Having recently been to Moscow's farmer's market, I had to vote for it as my favorite when I saw a web site soliciting votes for favorite farmer's markets. I haven't been to dozens or anything, but I've been to a few, and so far, it's still my favorite. They ask for comments when you vote, and I wrote the following:
It takes place in the heart of town, by Friendship Square, and is a true farmer's market, where growers bring their own high-quality crops and products and sell them at affordable prices, a clear reminder of the foundation the region has been built upon. Add on top of that culinary fare from all around the world, local organizations, local talent in the form of photography, crafts, woodwork, music, and others, and you've got an energetically upbeat celebration of local industry and art around which the relatively (for a small town in Idaho) diverse community comes together. I may be biased, being from Moscow, but I've been to a few farmer's markets around the nation and in a couple of other countries, and there's just something unmatched about the sense of open-armed grassroots community characterized by Moscow's farmer's market.
I'll let you know when I experience more farmer's markets that make Moscow's seem less unique, and feel free to share if you know of some good ones. I actually haven't been to one here in Utah yet. Maybe I'll have to add that to my plans for the next couple of weeks.
I'll let you know when I experience more farmer's markets that make Moscow's seem less unique, and feel free to share if you know of some good ones. I actually haven't been to one here in Utah yet. Maybe I'll have to add that to my plans for the next couple of weeks.
28 July 2009
Cradle- and Grave-Robbing
I've had a conversation with many friends in the past couple of months about the importance of age in dating, and my take has been that while age alone needn't necessarily be an automatic deal-killer, many people poo-poo age discrepancies as if they're no big deal, and I disagree completely. In short, age discrepancy is most often, in my opinion, a big deal.
Kudos to you if you're in a long-term relationship with someone fifteen years your senior that's working out great. Lovely. I don't disparage that. And I believe it can work, particularly if the younger party is unusually mature and the older party unusually immature, especially when we're talking about emotional intelligence and communication skills. Sorry, that's how I see it. I used to sing right along with the "age doesn't really matter as long as maturity matches" chorus, but my take on the matter has developed over time.
So do I worry when a thirty-year-old guy starts dating a twenty-year-old girl? Yes. I do. Especially when life experience differs widely between them. Even the most mature college freshman or sophomore still has a lot yet to experience in life and a lot of personal development in the next few years of life compared to someone who has a career, or has been in long-term relationships (or even married), or who has settled into a life with a home, etc. It's not so much the age in and of itself as it is the fact that very few twenty-year-olds have truly experienced the ups and downs, the depth of emotion, or the wide range of experiences and people which most thirty-year-olds have experienced.
That changes, of course, when you have a thirty-year-old who has kept to a very exclusive circle of friends, or who has never been in a relationship, or who doesn't think very much about the nuances and deeper aspects of life, combined with a twenty-year-old who is the opposite. But when that twenty-year-old is thirty, the former thirty-year-old who is now forty and hasn't changed, they'd better hope and pray that former twenty-year-old is still interested in being with him/her.
I suppose that to some, there's something subconsciously appealing about finding someone who's mature but still young, fresh, youthful, excited about life, and open to develop their tastes and passions with their partner's influence, a sort of ball of clay to sculpt into the sort of companion the person would want. But my view of reality tells me that not only would someone be unlikely to be truly sculpted long-term as they develop into their own person (assuming they ever do), but I want someone who teaches me and challenges me even as I do them. I want to have mutual respect and appreciation for each other's passions even if they're not exactly shared. And I want someone who is ready to go through life with me at my side as a helpful and faithful companion who knows they had options but consciously chose me, not a clueless, wide-eyed student-figure who's there to flatter me and make me feel young and sexually satisfied. Oh gee, did that come across with a touch of cynicism? Good. *wink*
Anyway, all that said, I don't automatically frown on relationships between people of widely different ages, and I do think the age difference becomes less relevant after about age 25. And again, sometimes, it just works, and I try to ultimately let the concerned parties figure that out on their own and trust their judgement. I just think it's absolutely preposterous when people confidently and defiantly declare "age doesn't matter one bit" or "love knows no bounds". They sound utterly juvenile to me, no matter their age. *wry grin*
It's possible I may have to eat my words if I ever meet someone who's younger than me but seems perfect for me and mature enough...or someone who has been in committed relationships when I haven't and who maybe has a successful career and home... Then will my position change because I'm experiencing the reality of it rather than some objective analysis? I may very possible see it differently then, but that's why I write things like this, to remind myself to remove my emotional attachments for a moment and remember the more objective reality so I don't make some stupid decision based on some sort of emotional "gimme" entitlement but with consideration for the long-term effects and fairness to the other person and myself. Does that mean I'll look back at this and break it off just to prove myself right? No. As I already said, there are exceptions, so as long as my situation proves to be outside of the ideas or principles I've mentioned, it's good to go. ...I just seriously doubt that's going to happen, in my case, with someone under 24 or 25 or much older than me.
Which brings up a point: should the actual age even matter, or should I just probe to find their life experience and gauge it on that, if it's not the number that really matters? I could see approaching it that way, but I have to make a couple of points:
All of this because I clicked on a stupid MSN article that I actually thought was a good, succint perspective on the matter, even though I must admit the woman sounds a bit naive and selfish in just a couple of parts. Hey, I guess I identify much more with the guy's perspective, even if I acknowledge the validity of most of what the woman says, too.
Kudos to you if you're in a long-term relationship with someone fifteen years your senior that's working out great. Lovely. I don't disparage that. And I believe it can work, particularly if the younger party is unusually mature and the older party unusually immature, especially when we're talking about emotional intelligence and communication skills. Sorry, that's how I see it. I used to sing right along with the "age doesn't really matter as long as maturity matches" chorus, but my take on the matter has developed over time.
So do I worry when a thirty-year-old guy starts dating a twenty-year-old girl? Yes. I do. Especially when life experience differs widely between them. Even the most mature college freshman or sophomore still has a lot yet to experience in life and a lot of personal development in the next few years of life compared to someone who has a career, or has been in long-term relationships (or even married), or who has settled into a life with a home, etc. It's not so much the age in and of itself as it is the fact that very few twenty-year-olds have truly experienced the ups and downs, the depth of emotion, or the wide range of experiences and people which most thirty-year-olds have experienced.
That changes, of course, when you have a thirty-year-old who has kept to a very exclusive circle of friends, or who has never been in a relationship, or who doesn't think very much about the nuances and deeper aspects of life, combined with a twenty-year-old who is the opposite. But when that twenty-year-old is thirty, the former thirty-year-old who is now forty and hasn't changed, they'd better hope and pray that former twenty-year-old is still interested in being with him/her.
I suppose that to some, there's something subconsciously appealing about finding someone who's mature but still young, fresh, youthful, excited about life, and open to develop their tastes and passions with their partner's influence, a sort of ball of clay to sculpt into the sort of companion the person would want. But my view of reality tells me that not only would someone be unlikely to be truly sculpted long-term as they develop into their own person (assuming they ever do), but I want someone who teaches me and challenges me even as I do them. I want to have mutual respect and appreciation for each other's passions even if they're not exactly shared. And I want someone who is ready to go through life with me at my side as a helpful and faithful companion who knows they had options but consciously chose me, not a clueless, wide-eyed student-figure who's there to flatter me and make me feel young and sexually satisfied. Oh gee, did that come across with a touch of cynicism? Good. *wink*
Anyway, all that said, I don't automatically frown on relationships between people of widely different ages, and I do think the age difference becomes less relevant after about age 25. And again, sometimes, it just works, and I try to ultimately let the concerned parties figure that out on their own and trust their judgement. I just think it's absolutely preposterous when people confidently and defiantly declare "age doesn't matter one bit" or "love knows no bounds". They sound utterly juvenile to me, no matter their age. *wry grin*
It's possible I may have to eat my words if I ever meet someone who's younger than me but seems perfect for me and mature enough...or someone who has been in committed relationships when I haven't and who maybe has a successful career and home... Then will my position change because I'm experiencing the reality of it rather than some objective analysis? I may very possible see it differently then, but that's why I write things like this, to remind myself to remove my emotional attachments for a moment and remember the more objective reality so I don't make some stupid decision based on some sort of emotional "gimme" entitlement but with consideration for the long-term effects and fairness to the other person and myself. Does that mean I'll look back at this and break it off just to prove myself right? No. As I already said, there are exceptions, so as long as my situation proves to be outside of the ideas or principles I've mentioned, it's good to go. ...I just seriously doubt that's going to happen, in my case, with someone under 24 or 25 or much older than me.
Which brings up a point: should the actual age even matter, or should I just probe to find their life experience and gauge it on that, if it's not the number that really matters? I could see approaching it that way, but I have to make a couple of points:
- 1. if they'll withhold such a basic bit of information, what else will they deem unnecessary for me to know and withhold based on its supposed irrelevance?
2. it raises a red flag to me that they are likely to be less open than I would be about basic things that even they claim "shouldn't matter", and I can't feel the trust and intimacy I would want if I can't even know their birth year or see a driver's license. That, to me, is like refusing to tell them how many brothers and sisters I have or where I was born or even whether I've ever been in a committed relationship. No, those don't independently define "who I am", and they may not be relevant to a new relationship, but they do offer more of a picture, and why withhold it? It's all part of me, and there's nothing shameful in things I can't control, so if they'd judge me harshly by those things, then they aren't right for me anyway and I should allow them the opportunity to make that call.
All of this because I clicked on a stupid MSN article that I actually thought was a good, succint perspective on the matter, even though I must admit the woman sounds a bit naive and selfish in just a couple of parts. Hey, I guess I identify much more with the guy's perspective, even if I acknowledge the validity of most of what the woman says, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)