Categories
Connecting

Touching the Untouchable

At what level of discourse will I step over the boundary of comfort? I came close with the postings on anger, but thankfully, we were able to box these in with an objectively intellectual viewpoint that pushed the topic safely and correctly back into manageable bounds.

So now, let us up the ante on human emotions and see if words can truly strip away all context and feeling and pain until nothing else is left except a black and white description of an act.

In a posting today, Jonathon talks about attending a Japanese film festival and the increasing discomfort of the audience when the expert who introduces the film abruptly stops speaking about Japanese morals from an ‘intellectual’ perspective, and begins to speak of them from an experiential one.

This expert, Donald Ritchie broke the taboo’d boundaries of an intellectual discussion with a story based on humor, and real life, and actual sensuality. And the elite, the intelligencia, reacted in open and overt hostility. Jonathon writes:

But for the majority of his listeners he had already said far too much. The forced atmosphere seemed to choke off any further questions and soon the audience was filing out, a restrained silence replacing the excited chatter that followed most screenings.

I found Jonathon’s posting to be eerily timely and apropos for me because I had spent last night and this morning wrestling with whether to talk about Gene Kan.

I wanted to talk about Gene because if nothing else, we owe him that. And I didn’t, because I was brought up in a society where one doesn’t do certain things. Such as get angry. Such as admitting going to a Japanese brothel.

Such as talking about suicide.

Gene Kan killed himself. He was 25 and he took a gun and he killed himself. He did not have an “accident” as the Sun spokesperson described. And we can’t bury his final act with a recitation of all of the accomplishments of his very short life.

Gene’s final act is one few of us would contemplate; yet it is the one act – the only act – over which any of us could have ultimate control. To deny this act is, in many ways, to deny the actor.

I said earlier that I was angry that Gene had killed himself, and I am. Incredibly angry. But I’m also angry that we’ve euphemized his suicide, boxed it in with platitudes, and reduced it to a sound bite.

Kent (fishrush) found Gene’s last resume (thanks Kent), which I’ve copied to the bottom of this posting. Read it.

Gene Kan

Summary:

Sad example of a human being. Specialising in failure.

1990-current Failure specialist

Executed numerous technical, commercial and personal
projects, typically resulting in failure.

References available upon request.

And that’s all I have to say, now.

Categories
Connecting

More angry voices

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Interesting comments in the the Value of Anger posting. As I expected, this is not a subject that people treat lightly. However, I was surprised at how personally some people took this posting.

For instance, Dave Rogers disagrees, strongly, with the concept of “healthy anger”, writing:

Anger isn’t some transcendent experience. It’s a temporary (hopefully) abnormal condition. Let it go.

Frank Paynter was actually “pissed” because Mike Golby and I talked about the healing power of anger. He wrote:

Anger is a bad thing. It comes from fear, and it inspires fear. Fear has a proximate cause. Root out the cause, displace the anger. Anger sucks. Angry people rationalize inhuman behavior. Angry people foster hostility and resentment in others. Angry people haven’t learned a loving acceptance that transcends helpless acceptance. Angry people are stunted in their personal development.

And both Jonathon and Dorothea saw themselves as “gently melancholic and intellectually pessimistic”, taking exception to the line If it’s angry people that forge a new society, it’s the gently melancholic, the intellectually pessimistic, and the complacent and indifferent people that destroy it.

Considering that I was wrote this line after reading a book based on a period of time 1000 years ago, I wasn’t expecting immediate identification. However, this shouldn’t be surprising. No matter how technologically advanced we get, no matter how we see ourselves advancing as a species, we’re still nothing more than humans experiencing human emotions. Love. Hate. Joy. Compassion. And Anger.

Anger is a part of us. It’s been a part of us before we ever attached a name to the emotion so that we could discuss it rather than act it out. To deny anger is to deny ourselves. Might as well deny love – it, too, can lead to destructive actions.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I have no interest in being a saint. And I have no interest in denying my capability for love or anger. I would hope that I expend my love on those that return it – to do otherwise leads to a great deal of pain. And I hope that I can control my anger and use the energy it generates for something productive, such as fighting the current political administration.

Mike had it right – anger is sharing.

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
Connecting

Wrap Up

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I found out this morning that one can still have ADSL without having phone service. My phone is disconnected but the ADSL is still active.

Once the internet has you, it doesn’t want to let you go.

This posting was previously titled The Untouchables. However, I removed the previous contents because I realized this morning that the writing was unfair. I was writing about another author in a context that didn’t necessarily give her a comfortable forum with which to respond. And that’s not right. My apologies to Meg for criticizing her work in a way that didn’t allow her to respond. Sorry, Meg. You deserved better.

I still don’t agree with what Meg wrote in this one instance, even with Jeff’s lovely entry into the discussion – but we’ll leave it at that and close the subject. I left the skeleton of the pulled posting because of the comments. In particular Ruzz has a nice comment and Stavros has a link to a nice posting – I didn’t want to pull these.

I did pull another post, though I know that Mike Sanders has written on it. However, he has pulled out those components of the posting he finds to be relevant to his writing. I should apologize to Mike, but at this time, I’m just too tired to issue yet more apologies.

What’s that you say? Weblogging means never having to say you’re sorry?

I will finish the Thread the Needle application as quickly as possible. Once started, this app should take on a life of its own and grow beyond any one person’s control – that’s how I’m designing it.

Though Needle isn’t necessary for dialogs to continue (dialogs have been occurring successfully without the technology). hopefully, it will provide a way for new voices to enter the dialog and be heard. Those at the center of a discussion don’t need Thread the Needle; it’s being built for those at the edge.

Update: U Blog Senior Lecturer in Tionian Area Studies and Chaplain AKMA and PorridgeBoy’s good twin, Gary Turner (the one who doesn’t put salt in his porridge) have stepped up to gather requirements from the weblogging community for Thread the Needle. Thanks, guys.