Category: Culture

Categories
Connecting

Trust: Burden or gift

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Any movie that features betrayal as part of the plot usually features a scene where the injured party cries out I trusted you! In one form or another, it is the ultimate denouncement, the worst condemnation of another. Yet, how many times have we asked for trust, and how many times has it been thrust at us? We look at trust as a gift freely given, but I wonder if it isn’t more a burden than a gift.

When we have a child, even when we obtain a pet, we’ve accepted trust willingly because neither the baby nor the kitten or puppy, bird or fish, had any say, yay or nay, in entering the relationship with us. When I hear of a parent neglecting or harming a child, or when I hear of a person torturing or starving a dog, my blood boils because I can think of no greater crime than to betray the trust of the innocent. The child did not ask to be born. The puppy did not ask to come home.

When we are born, we enter into a relationship of trust with the world around us. We are taught that we have an obligation not to harm others, not to waste, not to destroy. But we betray that trust day by day, sometimes minute by minute, because we are consumers of raw material; we are producers of waste. But the mitigation of this betrayal of trust is based both on degree and intent. Destroying a tree to make paper is understood; destroying a city to kill one man, less so.

Such forms of trust are interwoven into our existence, an acknowledgement that life carries with it a disclaimer reading, in part …by continuing to breath, you accept that you have a responsibility to those around you; a responsibility not to be discarded without serious reprecussions….

Some forms of trust come with the roles we take on. We place a great deal of trust in those who enforce our laws; we trust them to do their jobs and, in exchange, we give them extraordinary power over us. Their betrayal, then, is when they stop trusting us.

There are forms of trust based on specific acts of mutual agreement. When we marry we enter into an agreement based on trust as much as love. When we take a job, we enter into an association based on trust – we trust the employer to pay us and to provide a safe environment, they trust us to work hard and be honest. The teacher and student accept the bonds of trust – the teacher to do their job effectively, the student to respect the teacher. In these acts, we enter into a relationship that depends on the other from the first moment, a contract of trust if you will.

Friendship is where the exchange of trust is at its most complex. At some point in a friendship, there may be an exchange of trust. Or there may not be. Two people can call themselves friends and be friends for life, but never trust each other. Another two may meet and in five minutes exchange trust and with it the intimacies that go with trust.

Kierkegaard’s Leap of Faith was based on religious belief, but for me the truest leap of faith is when we give our trust to another person and call them ‘friend’.

Categories
Diversity

Amazons raise your shields on high

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Dave quotes a posting from Tara Sue, who writes:

 

My friend Ross and I have a lot in common. We both come from military families–his cousin and uncle serve and my brothers are soldiers. We were both raised by our father. And we share many ideas in business and politics. But there is plenty of room to disagree. Today we argued about war. I spoke with his wife and said, “If we replaced every man in power with a woman, there would be less war.” I don’t care for any speculation on the matter. We’ve never experienced mass matriarchy on this planet. There is no room for discussion–only proof. We will make peace in this world only after peace has been brought to our home. There are too many females pushing the testosterone bandwagon. I read an article today by a “chick” who thinks war is the “grown-up” thing to do. She went so far as too chide the protestors as though they are just simple minded youngsters, left-overs from the sixities who are just not “grown up” enough to make a choice for peace, but those who are grown up should know to support the war. Well, sister, even morons grow up.

Jonathon picks up on the premise and writes about the changing roles of women in combat. He writes:

 

I have no idea what Tara Sue Grubb might think of women in the military—whether she sees female soldiers as part of that group of women she criticizes for wanting “to have what [men] have.” Yet, given that one of the key goals of feminism has been to dismantle the political and cultural barriers to women’s participation in every field of human activity, it’s inevitable that women—or, at least, some women—would wish to participate in John Keegan’s “entirely masculine activity”: combat.

When we consider the major psychological transformations precipitated by weapons and tactics that allowed man to kill at a distance in an emotionally detached manner, it is hardly coincidental that women are integrated into combat units in the US Navy and Air Force—where they would not be expected to engage directly with an enemy—but are excluded from combat in the US Army where the chance of face-to-face contact is significantly higher.

 

The argument about women in combat and whether women being in charge would prevent war is somewhat mute because several times in the past, societies have been matriarchal, and many times, women have been the primary ruler. And we still have war. There is no sex-related war gene. There is only cultural indoctrination.

Think of the lion. It is the female who hunts, and it is the female who protects her young, and therefore the species. All the male does is sleep, have sex with the females, and fight other males for possession of the females.

(Well, okay, from this example I guess we could say that we females lack the gene that makes us want to fight other females over a man.)

For every woman simpering in a kitchen saying she’s too frail to lift a gun because she’ll break a nail; and for every woman claiming woman as goddess who states that if only women were in charge, our nurturing natures would prevent war, I repeat what I said in Jonathon’s comments:

This “woman as nurturing mother figure” is absolute bullshit.

The primary reason women have been adverse to warfare in the past is because women have usually been left at home, unprotected, while the men went off with all the weapons, leaving them vulnerable.

Tara Sue needs to consider a little history lesson about women and fighting. Most of the early Celtic war leaders were women. Women were gladiators in Rome. Most of the native american tribes in this country were matriarchial and they did fight wars. Women have dressed as men to fight as soldiers, or have picked up the guns of fallen soldiers and taken their place — without training I might add.

There isn’t a ‘war gene’ that’s sex related. The only reason women aren’t allowed in fighting infantry is the stupid old men in this country who don’t want to face the political backlash of the first women killed in actual hand to hand combat. Horrors! A potential mother killed!

And because of this, women also lose out on advancements, many of which are dependent on being in a combat unit.

If women have one thing that men don’t have it’s more of a willingness to see and acknowledge our mistakes, and our aggressiveness is usually vocal rather than physical. And these are more from cultural upbringing than sex-related genetics. Perhaps because of these characteristics, there _might_ be less war.

Here we go again, another round of making women into these delicate flowers of sensitivity and feminity, fragile, manipulative little blossoms whose sensibilities are too refined to do something such as ‘fight in a war’. Horrors!

Girlism redux.

 

Categories
Connecting

Your opinion and the relevance of things

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

A few weeks back a person who I hadn’t talked to on the phone for some time called me and we were chatting away. While talking, he got another call and excused himself for a moment to check who it was. He then came back on the line to say so-and-so was on the line and he’ll call me back.

He did call back and we had a conversation but at the point, the conversation was strained. The reason why is that no matter how important the other person was to my friend, I, also, am an important person — to someone somewhere. If the other caller was someone who my friend hadn’t heard from, or the issue was critical, the story would have been different. But it was just one of many calls the two exchange during the day.

Later that night, in an email to my friend, I wrote basically the following (names and stuff edited):

 

You’re a terrific person and my friend. but when you call me and we’re talking and another person calls through, even the person you love, the decent thing to do would be continue your conversation with me and tell the other person you’ll call them back. Love does not give anyone the right to make another person feel second-best.

 

Exposing ourselves daily on these ‘boards’ as we do, sometimes we think that this gives each of us the right to tell our ‘weblogging friends’ where they’re going wrong, and what they need to do to go right. But you know, none of what happens here gives anyone this right.

We ask for opinions, and we should accept these gratefully, regardless of the opinion. But sometimes we just talk, just talk, and what we say is nothing more than what we’re thinking or even feeling at the moment. It’s then we have to rely on something that’s so old it seems as if can never be fashionable again. But as with so many other things on the Internet, the old can be made new again, and this applies to courtesy as much as to anything else.

I heard from another friend last night who had been ‘publicly de-linked’ from another weblogger’s blogroll because of what she had been writing. I’m not linking to either of them, not because I’m denying them “link juice”, but because in some ways the ‘public de-link’ isn’t really the issue, courtesy is. (Apologies to them both and if they want me to link to their posts, I will.)

None of us is perfect, and only the most shallow person can write in such a way as to please all people at all times (or should we say, not displease all people at least some of the time). Courtesy dictates that if a person isn’t writing about a subject you’re currently interested in, you move to another weblog until they do, or you don’t ever come back. But you don’t chastise them because they’re writing on topics that don’t interest you. It’s not weblogging etiquette or something silly like that. It’s courtesy.

Now, if we express strong opinion, we’ll get strong opinion back. And if we write about controversy, expect comments. That should be accepted. My last few postings were nothing if not expressions of strong opinions, and I should be willing to accept as good as I get. None of us writes in isolation.

Expressing disagreement is not a discourtesy. Only when the argument becomes condescending or personal has the act gone from opinion to discourtesy. When you respond to another’s post, do you say “You’re wrong because of…”, or do you say things such as “I’m disappointed in you” or “I didn’t expect this coming from you”. There is difference. The former allows me my opinion, the latter does not.

You see, I am not here to please you, or to seek your goodwill. I thank you for your respect, appreciation and liking; but only as a gift freely given, not a payment for services rendered.

Am I rambling? I think I am, so I need to bring this back around full circle.

Before you think I’m again on my high moral horse, looking down on all you sinners, think again. I screwed the pooch twice this last week — once in Jonathon Delacour’s comments and once associated with Halley’s Alpha Male posting.

In Jonathon’s comments, I was just plain rude. I let the topic of copyright irritate me, I felt he took the high ground, and reacted thoughtlessly as a result.

As for Halley’s postings, I didn’t want to write about them, so instead I found myself going to different weblogs, dropping noises of disagreement about the posting in the comments of those webloggers who liked what Halley wrote for purely personal reasons. Disagreement isn’t necessarily a ‘bad thing’, but when I got to the second instance of leaving a comment I should have held back and wrote the posting I ended up writing, rather than chastise the other webloggers — Tom Shugart and Jeneane Sessum — for writing what was a personal expression of appreciation.

Scenario:

 

“This was nicely written and I appreciate the sentiment.”

“What’s to appreciate. She said this and this and this and this.”

“Stop appreciating it!”

 

I know when to give opinion and when to shut up.

I think this is, indirectly, my way of apologizing to Jonathon and Tom and Jeneane for my discourtesy in their comments. And I’d like to say I won’t do it again, but I’m sure I will, because I’m human, and I make mistakes, and I screw up. And I am counting on their understanding of this fact to offset my discourtesy.

As understanding as I should have been with my friend.

Categories
Diversity Writing

The perfect woman

Ladies! Ladies! Please stop your housekeeping for one moment and pay attention to some absolutely vital information. A wonderful new treat is heading to the bookshelves in February, ladies. I know that you’re all shivery in anticipation just from my introduction, but be sure to fold your towels and take the curlers out of your hair before you rush past your 5.3 children on the way to the store to buy it.

What is this new treat? Why, dear hearts, it’s none other than Phyllis Schlafly’s newest book, Feminist Fantasies! Isn’t this just the biggest thrill!

Now, now, don’t swoon. I know that we couldn’t ask for a better valentine’s present, and you’re all agog in anticipation.

Don’t pee your panties, ladies, but there’s more — none other than Ann Coulter has written the forward to it! Yes! I would not josh you, ladies! Ann Coulter, herself! I am beside myself. Just beside myself.

Now you can tell that big, strong man in your life what to get you for Valentine’s Day instead of a silly box of chocolates (not to mention that you’ve gained a few pounds anyway, darling, and nothing turns that handsome man of yours off more than bulky thighs). Just make sure you re-assure him that you won’t take time out from your wifely duties to read it. You tell Charlie that Charlene, Charlie Joe, Billy Chuck, Cherrie Charlie, and Bob are more important than a book, even one as important as “Feminist Fantasies”.

However, since I am such a tease I thought I would re-print some of the advanced review of the book. Just for you, my darlings.

Just for you.

 

So, this feminist writer in her thirties started interviewing smart young women in their twenties and she learned quite a lot. She discovered that, among women in their twenties, “feminism has become a dirty word.” She discovered that young women in their twenties have concluded that feminists are “unhappy,” “bitter,” “angry,” “tired,” and “bored,” and that the happy, enthusiastic, relaxed women are not feminists. The writer found that young women are especially turned off by feminism because of its “incredible bitterness.” She admitted that “feminism had come to be strongly identified with lesbianism.”
…
The Wall Street Journal ran a series of news stories about the disruption in corporations and law firms caused by the wave of pregnancies at the managerial and professional levels. Since more women hold high-level jobs, their time off for pregnancy has caused serious company disruptions. In the past eight years, the number of women over thirty having a child has almost doubled

A study by the advertising firm of Batten, Barton, Durstine & Osborne discovered that “the professional homemaker is a happy woman who feels good about herself and her ability to stick to her decision to remain at home, even under strong societal pressure to find an outside job.” She is feminine and traditional; she is not feminist.

 

I’m so excited about this book, my dears, that I’ve decided to celebrate it’s publication with a series of weblog postings focusing on Phyllis Schlafly and her impact on culture, titled The Perfect Woman in the inaugural launch of the new Evil Woman weblog.

Coming to a browser near you, February 5th.

Categories
Diversity Weblogging

More than a little envy?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I’ve been determined not to write anything on any of Halley’s posts about Alpha Males, other than a link here or there for fun. Today’s posting made hash of that, though.

There’s so much about this posting that really describes ‘everyman’ not just that mythical man beast, Alpha Man. And in many ways, I can enjoy Halley’s posting, when she writes:

 

At work he spends a good part of his day trying to dodge the bullets of getting fired, trying to climb the ladder to a promotion — only now it’s an escalator that used to go up but looks more like those endless automatic walkways in airports — stretching flat for miles with occasional rises — and when he’s not losing heart over his own circumstances, he’s called on to help other guys and gals deal with the same disturbing business terrain, which he does with good humor, courage and generosity.

What’s not to like, or to empathize with regardless of one’s sex? But then there’s a paragraph such as the following:

 

At breakfast, he’s doing 2nd grade math with his daughter who’s braiding Barbie’s hair and doesn’t care much about carrying. She does light up when he scribbles the answers next to the problems and lets her copy them in her scrunchy writing in the right place. His coffee isn’t the way he likes it since they’ve run out of half-and-half. Watch what our hero does — does he think, SHE forgot to get half-and-half and adds one more disappointment to his list of wifely misdeeds — NO! He looks over at her and sees she’s up to her ass in alligators as well, packing lunches, writing notes to teachers, dashing for school buses. She’s half dressed and not the sexy girl he married by a long shot. No, she’s not Dr. Holly Goodhead, but he goes over and gives her a hug and says something terrific like, “what’s a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?” and tells her how great she is. Wow! This guy knows how to do the right thing.

 

And I have to push back because the image of little girl too busy playing with Barbie to learn math, and Big Daddy helping her to cheat after he refrains from not yelling at his wife because she didn’t buy half-n-half shows us Mr. Hyde to go with Dr. Jeckyll. In this case saying the ‘right thing’ doesn’t erase the wrong image.

My first reaction was a complete rejection of the posting, but then I read Jeneane Sessum’s reason why she liked the post. In Jeneane’s comments, she wrote:

 

What I liked about it was that this one, unlike the others, had “her” in it–in other words, she was observing, not stating the case for all me/women. To me it seemed like she was waking up, going through the day with, and then encountering her dream alpha male as she walked down the street. I love when people put themselves into their posts. Like you!

I love when people put themselves into their posts Suddenly I could see what drew other people to the post, and to much of Halley’s writing — she does put herself into her posts. She draws people in.

I envy Halley. Not the Alpha Male stuff, which I see more as tongue-in-cheek. She connects with people, as if the weblogging medium is a clay that she can mold and extend from the page. Jeneane’s kindness aside, this is something I don’t do. Even at my most intimate, I am not intimate. Chances are very good that l will never meet other webloggers, or only a few. My connectivity with all of you will be through these pages, through these words, which I wrap around myself like a soft, warm comforter in a cold night.

I love my words, I love to write, but they make a thin comforter. Sometimes, this all becomes just too damn flat — like being a line person in the land of the three-dimensional.