Categories
Diversity Just Shelley

Older, Taller, Richer, Wiser

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

My divorce has been final for over a year, which means I feel that it’s now “safe” for me to consider dating again. And as much as I think my weblogging male friends are the most wonderful, sexiest, interesting people in the world, I don’t want to snuggle up to a warm monitor on a Saturday night.

Dating again – this is something I haven’t done since I was in my 20’s, and I’m not sure what’s changed since then and now. What are the rules today? Do women ask men out? Who pays? Is the first date too soon for…

…holding hands?

(What did you think I’d say, you nasty minded folk.)

Years ago it was all so much less complicated – women simply followed the older, taller, richer, and wiser rule.

Men are Older

If you’re in a heterosexual relationship, who’s the older – the woman or man? Chances are very good that the man is the older, a trend that transcends cultures.

Back in olden times, the rule of the man being older than the woman made sense; after all, women tended to die younger due to childbirth and attendant complications. Additionally, men were considered unstable when they were younger, and women wanted a man who had “sown the oats” – was ready to settle down and be a good provider, father, and mate.

However, today, women have more control over childbirth and statistically have a longer lifespan than men. In addition, women come into their peak sexually at an older age, men at a younger age.

So, based on these considerations, should I be dating a younger man? Or should I continue with the tried but true older man? How about a man exactly my age?

(Scratch the last one – limiting myself to men who are exactly my age is going to decrease the available selection rather harshly, and being a woman in my 40’s already makes me more likely to be hit by a meteor than to meet someone more intelligent than an amoeba.)

I’m not interested in dating men who are ready to retire to the rocking chair; however, the thought of dating someone much younger leaves me cold. What’s a fair age difference today – plus or minus ten years? Twenty? Should I just be happy that they’re still breathing?

Of course once the issue of age is resolved, next comes…

Men are Taller

As far back as recorded history, men have historically been taller than women – at least within western civilization. Genectic selectivity most likely ensured this as women looked for men who are physically capable of protecting them as well as performing the manual toil necessary to support them.

Of course, as with the issue of age, men being taller – or stronger – than a woman is no longer the necessity it once was. Who needs protection through a man when one has a warm gun, to quote the Beatles. Still, old habits die hard.

Now, height isn’t necessarily as much of an issue as age because the average height of a woman is 5’8″ tall, the average height of a man is 5’10”. However, this is changing. Over the last two generations the average height for men has remained relatively stable while women’s has been increasing. The Age of the Amazon is upon us.

Of course, with me, the Age of the Amazon is already here – I’m 5’11” tall. In other words, I’m taller than the average guy. (Please, no jokes such as, “How’s the rain up there” – I’ve been known to spit on people and say “Not bad. How is it down there?”)

Rather than lurking about professional Basketball player locker rooms, I decided to do away with the “man must be taller” years ago. Just too many interesting guys who were shorter than me. Of course, the gentleman in question must also be beyond worries and considerations of being shorter than the woman – I wonder if this is more likely than me being hit by a meteor?

Men are Richer

When I was younger, the thing among us young babes was to marry a “successful” young man someday, have 2 kids, station wagon, dogs, the whole bit. Then we got older, and a hell of a lot smarter, but the image of “marrying success” still seems to linger here and there in and amidst different cultures.

The necessity of marrying well is very understandable when you consider that in the US, as with most countries, women were restricted in regards to profession as well as ownership of property. For the most part, women worked as teachers, maids, or prostitutes. Additionally, women were considered property of father, brother, or husband. If a woman had wealth through her father, it became the property of her husband when they married, or was managed by a male relative if the woman was single.

The best a woman could hope for was marrying a man who didn’t beat her, who could support her and the children, and didn’t screw around in front of her.

As the song says, the times they are a changing. Now both men and women look to marry well so that they can have twin BMWs parked in the driveway to impress the neighbors.

For myself, I’d rather date a man who’s interesting and fun to talk to than one who’s rich. And I’m more than willing to pay my own way on a date – as long as the guy assures me that we won’t be hit by a meteor while we’re out and about.

Men are Wiser

Discussing the classic work, The Tale of Genji, Jonathon writes:

Genji’s friend To-no-Chujo tells of a lover who bore him a daughter but who, ironically, lost his affection through being too meek and accommodating. The ideal woman, they conclude, “does not try to display her scanty knowledge in full,” nor does she “scribble off Chinese characters,” rather she shows taste and restraint and is prepared to “feign a little ignorance.”

A thousand years later, and not a lot has changed – the concept of dumbing down in order to attract guys was far too common when I was in school; the fact that women are disproportionally under-represented in the hard sciences today leads me to believe that this nasty little rule still lurks about.

Frankly, I’d rather curl up against a warm monitor for the rest of my life than to dumb down to attract a guy. End of story on this one.

So…

Since the reliable older, taller, richer, and wiser rule just doesn’t work for me, I guess I’ll have to settle for dating people because of who they are rather than what category they fall into. It may not be as simple, but at least it promises not to be boring.

Of course, I could always get hit by a meteor, first.

Categories
Diversity Legal, Laws, and Regs

The Pledge

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I was extremely pleased and surprised to hear that an appellate court has ruled that reciting the Oath of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase “…under God”.

Not everyone believes in a God, nor do all religions support the concept of taking an oath. In both cases, the daily oath makes kids who don’t participate feel like outsiders, especially in today’s frenzied patriotic environment.

The Oath of Allegiance and coating our cars, homes, and bodies with variations of red, white, and blue are cheap and easy ways to show our patriotism. Much simpler to say an Oath than to carefully pursue details of bills pending in Congress, or to vote based on individual merit rather than party affiliation.

Not all webloggers are so pleased as I. Amidst a tangled web considers this a giant step back, saying As a big fan of God, I hope he gets to stay in the USA. At Boboroshi.com:

It’s gotten to the point where society is evicting any piece of religion from anything political. The problem exists that, in evicting religion from our society and becoming completely secularized, those who have exized religion have not been able to replace its moral teachings.

Our society was based on a secular government, a nation whereby church and state are separated. This does not preclude the practice of religion, but does put religious practice where it belongs: celebrated by individuals in their own space, their own time, protected by law.

As for the “moral teachings” of religion, there is no religion – none – that doesn’t have incidents in its past that the modern practitioners of same would just as soon forget. And there have been few wars fought that didn’t have a kernel of religion at their core – including the current conflicts in the Middle East. In actuality, morality, or lack thereof, is a matter of individual responsibility rather than religious affiliation.

Perhaps we should create a new Oath – one with a bit broader base:

I give my promise
to all of humanity
to support freedom in all its forms.

 

And to the world
in which we live
one world, indivisible
I support liberty and justice for all

I can live with this.

Categories
Diversity Political

SFSU 2

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I did have a chance to talk with people directly familiar with the SFSU peace rally. Additionally, The Jewish Bulletin provided expanded coverage of the email that generated so much discussion.

I rather liked the Bulletin’s coverage. It makes no apology that it has a bias — it is a Jewish publication. However, within that framework, it seems to go out of its way to present the facts. That has earned my respect and it is a publication I will pay close attention to.

From my understanding, there was unwarranted ugliness, and difficulties associated with the counter-demonstration:

Sophomore Dikla Tuchman, an organizer of the pro-Israel rally, said she and others in her group were cleaning up and saying their goodbyes when the event was “sabotaged” by pro-Palestinians, armed with whistles and bullhorns. Although the rally had ended at 1:30 p.m., Hillel had reserved the campus space until 2 p.m., so “it was still our time” when the pro-Palestinians demanded that the Jewish students clear out, she said.

However, it would seem as if the events weren’t quite as “drastic” as was originally reported:

The conversation was getting heated on both sides,” explained Polidora (SFSU Public Relations Director). “Our goal was to keep everybody safe.”

But Polidora also pointed out that much of what happened is based on perception. “Everyone has a unique perspective depending on where they’re coming from,” she said. “Everyone saw it differently.”

Ultimately, the focus about this event should have been about the positive aspects of the rally:

Cohen (International Hillel’s senior consultant) said he was personally disappointed that the controversy undermines the fact that throughout 90 percent of the day, “this was the most successful rally for peace in Israel at SFSU for years.”

Anti-Semitism is not to be tolerated — I may not agree with the Bulletin’s unqualified support for Isreali policies, but I can agree with it’s battle against anti-Semitism. And based on this, I plan on attending as many of these events as possible in this area, in order to fight anti-Semitism. However, this does not change my viewpoint on the policies inacted in the Middle East — it only reflects what I’ve known and felt all along: that all racism and bigotry, including anti-Semitism is wrong, and to be stopped wherever it occurs.

I’ve also sent the link to the Bulletin’s article to Mike Sanders, Meryl Yourish, and Glenn Reynolds. Considering that the article was written by people who were there and directly involved, I would think that they would be interested in hearing what it says.

I do ask that my interest in finding the truth about this event not be misrepresented. At most I ask you to write that I sought the truth. And printed it when I found it.

End of story.

Categories
Diversity Writing

Of kitchen things

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I love reading about everyday things.

Allan talks about a new Sushi restaurant opening in town that uses trolleys to deliver the food. I’m still trying to figure out how this system of food delivery is going to work. I’m visualizing this little trolley racing by, and having to grab food out of it, quickly, before it goes out of reach. However, we’re talking about food — sushi — that doesn’t necessarily grab that easily. In my mind I see nori and rice as well as bits of fish flying hither and yon.

Justin takes a sentimental journey through town and through memory as he prepares for a move. Speaking as one who has lived all over this country, it’s the small things — our barbers, favorite restaurants, and walks — you miss most when you move.

Everyday things.

My interest in reading about everyday things is especially heightened after I read one of Jonathon’s posts about Japanese women’s writing — books by eleventh century women authors. Today he writes about how women’s writing was considered inferior, joryu bungaku:

I would not understand until years later that, consciously or not, Rimer was following a long tradition in Japanese literary criticism which—using terms such as “joryu sakka” (woman writer) and “joryu bungaku” (women’s literature)—places most women writers in a separate (and implicitly inferior) category

A low opinion of women’s writing wasn’t limited to the Japanese; Western civilization also considered women’s writing to be inferior. For instance, Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote:

“American is now wholly given over to a d____d mob of scribbling women, and I have no chance of success while the public taste is occupied with their trash — and should be ashamed of myself if I did succeed.”

Though Western women didn’t write in a separate language, as the Japanese women did long ago, they wrote of subjects considered of “lesser importance” — of life and love and everyday things. An indirect reference to this is made in Jury of her Peers, by Susan Glaspell. She wrote:

Nothing here but kitchen things,” he said, with a little laugh for the insignificance of kitchen things.”

Introducing my new weblog tag line: Nothing here but kitchen things…

Categories
Diversity

Say What?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Jeneane Sessum just posted a note that had me going “say what?” about half way down.

I can sympathize with Jeneane that she misses her husband while he’s working in Japan, but I can’t agree with her when she generalizes her own personal sense of lonliness and temporary loss of his presence with sayings such as:

Look, the absence of testosterone in a household, combined with an overabundance of estrogen, is just not a good thing. I’ve seen it in companies I’ve worked for. Those places where the first meeting in the morning means two or three women crying, or at least one of them walking out in a fit of rage, punctuating their departure with a slammed door.

I haven’t worked at a lot of companies that are controlled by women at the top, primarily because I’ve worked at larger corporations and control of these types of companies is still male-dominated. However, I’ve worked at a significant number of companies where my upper level management is female, and I’ve never noticed a difference in the number of women “…crying, or at least one of them walking out in a fit of rage…” at these companies.

To be honest, I’ve not really noticed that much of a difference, good or bad, in overall behavior of a group based on the sex of the upper management.

Regardless of the preferred expression — tears or words or actions — excessive emotionalism at work occurs in both sexes. Sex of the boss, number of men or women in the group, sex of your co-workers — none of these purely sex-based characteristics play into this one.

Group dynamics is a lot more complex than basic rutting behavior.

To say that women need to have men to somehow “balance” them in the work place or home because of an estrogen/testosterone thing is to support stereotypes that can only hurt both sexes, professionally and personally.