Saturday, April 17, 2004
How do you choose a political party?
People say that there's not much difference between the 2 major parties any more; if that were so, wouldn't people of all sorts be pretty evenly distributed between them? Last time I looked, almost any group you can name has a marked preference for one party or the other, so there's gotta be SOME sort of significant difference... which of course there is.
Ok, so, 2 different parties; what do you base your choice on? You could look at how they each stand on whatever issues are important to you, but you're likely to discover, as many others have, that neither party believes your way on every issue, and perhaps that neither party shares your exact beliefs on ANY issue; you may even find that each party believes close to what you do on some things and the exact opposite on other things, which can cause everything to cancel out, so to speak... but you still have to choose, somehow.
Here's what I think is a foolproof way to choose a political party, not just in this country but in any country; look at the people that form the basis of the voters for each party, and choose that party that contains the sort of people you most admire.
Let's invent 2 fictional parties; we'll call them the Hu and Ko, because those letters are close together on my keyboard and I'm too lazy to invent clever names, lol. To use my method, here's what you need to know about them:
The Hu party consists of those who receive government handouts, those who are unable to lift themselves out of poverty, those who feel like they've gotten a bum deal and deserve special treatment, those who are still in school and have never had to deal with the real world, and those who work in the entertainment field and have also never had to deal with the real world.
The Ko party consists of those who have achieved some success, those who make most of the investments that finance the economy, those who have started businesses and thus created jobs, those who donate most of the $ received by charities, and those who pay most of the taxes that finance the running of the country.
Which group of people is the one you want to join? Which is the group that you'd feel proud to vote alongside? Make your choice... and don't make an "ass" out of yourself. ;-)
Ok, so, 2 different parties; what do you base your choice on? You could look at how they each stand on whatever issues are important to you, but you're likely to discover, as many others have, that neither party believes your way on every issue, and perhaps that neither party shares your exact beliefs on ANY issue; you may even find that each party believes close to what you do on some things and the exact opposite on other things, which can cause everything to cancel out, so to speak... but you still have to choose, somehow.
Here's what I think is a foolproof way to choose a political party, not just in this country but in any country; look at the people that form the basis of the voters for each party, and choose that party that contains the sort of people you most admire.
Let's invent 2 fictional parties; we'll call them the Hu and Ko, because those letters are close together on my keyboard and I'm too lazy to invent clever names, lol. To use my method, here's what you need to know about them:
The Hu party consists of those who receive government handouts, those who are unable to lift themselves out of poverty, those who feel like they've gotten a bum deal and deserve special treatment, those who are still in school and have never had to deal with the real world, and those who work in the entertainment field and have also never had to deal with the real world.
The Ko party consists of those who have achieved some success, those who make most of the investments that finance the economy, those who have started businesses and thus created jobs, those who donate most of the $ received by charities, and those who pay most of the taxes that finance the running of the country.
Which group of people is the one you want to join? Which is the group that you'd feel proud to vote alongside? Make your choice... and don't make an "ass" out of yourself. ;-)
Friday, April 16, 2004
Synchronicities and a poltergeist
A couple of nights ago, my husband was working on the taxes while I was reading in another room. Apropos of nothing, the phrase "mortgage tax form" popped into my head, so I called out to him "do you have the mortgage tax form?" and he replied "no, I just this moment started looking for it." HE thinks that was a coincidence.
I know a couple who bought a big fixer-upper house and have been working on it for a couple of years, and who have taken every opportunity during that time to make sure that EVERYONE knew exactly how much they were spending on each bit of the project; the negative feelings this has generated have come home to roost, because their finances took a massive turn for the worse, and they're going to very likely lose the house.
The female half of the couple was brought up short by this, and decided to leave it up to God to bring them some much-needed $. As has happened each time she has turned her problems over to God, she immediately had some spooky good fortune; she was clearing a pile of papers from the table, and fumbled them, ending up with them all on the floor... except for the help wanted ads. Although she hadn't considered leaving the job she loves, she opened the paper up, and there was a big box advertising a job within her specialty, one level up from what she currently does. Think good thoughts for her; she's interviewing for it on Monday.
What's happening when she turns things over to God, and to other people who do the same thing with similar spooky results? God, karma, psychic energy? Is there any difference?
I was looking for the jar of petroleum jelly to soothe my chapped lips today, and got alot more than moisturization. I looked in the bedroom, bathroom, study and family room-no sign of it. After doing a more thorough search of the family room, I headed back to the study to re-search it; there, on the floor, across the room from the desk, in the middle of the narrow path through the piles of junk, standing upright and with its label facing directly at the door, was... guess what. There's no way I could have missed seeing it before. There's no way I could have walked past it without tripping over it. There was no one else in the house. I have no pets. The window was closed and locked. There's no way that it could have fallen from the desk, assuming it was right at the edge, and ended up where it was; numerous drop tests from desk height confirmed that it only bounces/rolls a short distance, lands on its side, not upright, and the lid usually came off. My ultra-skeptical husband, when told of this event later this evening, had to admit that not even the wildest coincidences imaginable could have led to the jar ending up where I found it... but he won't admit that something outside of what he knows about has to be the cause.
Specifically; poltergeists.
I had been hearing noises from the study for the past few nights, but had been telling myself that it was the house settling, or the piles of junk settling, etc; yes, even I, who KNOW better, will automatically brush these sorts of events aside rather than seeing the obvious... and it IS obvious to ME when poltergeists are around, because I dealt with them for years when I was younger, with other people witnessing the manifestations, and seeing them respond to me, on several occasions, just FYI.
In my experience, poltergeists have never been aggressive, but that doesn't mean it's not dismaying to have them around; they try hard to get attention, and seem to really enjoy making off with small personal items and then putting them in some weird place, always prominently displayed, and making an escalating amount of racket until I talk to them. Despite what some people think, they are NOT "exciting" or "fun," and you would NOT want to have them around you; by about the 200th time you wake up to them banging around, or have to hunt all over for some little item that shows up in often the same weird spot, you get VERY tired of it.
This part of karma I do NOT want to investigate more closely.
I know a couple who bought a big fixer-upper house and have been working on it for a couple of years, and who have taken every opportunity during that time to make sure that EVERYONE knew exactly how much they were spending on each bit of the project; the negative feelings this has generated have come home to roost, because their finances took a massive turn for the worse, and they're going to very likely lose the house.
The female half of the couple was brought up short by this, and decided to leave it up to God to bring them some much-needed $. As has happened each time she has turned her problems over to God, she immediately had some spooky good fortune; she was clearing a pile of papers from the table, and fumbled them, ending up with them all on the floor... except for the help wanted ads. Although she hadn't considered leaving the job she loves, she opened the paper up, and there was a big box advertising a job within her specialty, one level up from what she currently does. Think good thoughts for her; she's interviewing for it on Monday.
What's happening when she turns things over to God, and to other people who do the same thing with similar spooky results? God, karma, psychic energy? Is there any difference?
I was looking for the jar of petroleum jelly to soothe my chapped lips today, and got alot more than moisturization. I looked in the bedroom, bathroom, study and family room-no sign of it. After doing a more thorough search of the family room, I headed back to the study to re-search it; there, on the floor, across the room from the desk, in the middle of the narrow path through the piles of junk, standing upright and with its label facing directly at the door, was... guess what. There's no way I could have missed seeing it before. There's no way I could have walked past it without tripping over it. There was no one else in the house. I have no pets. The window was closed and locked. There's no way that it could have fallen from the desk, assuming it was right at the edge, and ended up where it was; numerous drop tests from desk height confirmed that it only bounces/rolls a short distance, lands on its side, not upright, and the lid usually came off. My ultra-skeptical husband, when told of this event later this evening, had to admit that not even the wildest coincidences imaginable could have led to the jar ending up where I found it... but he won't admit that something outside of what he knows about has to be the cause.
Specifically; poltergeists.
I had been hearing noises from the study for the past few nights, but had been telling myself that it was the house settling, or the piles of junk settling, etc; yes, even I, who KNOW better, will automatically brush these sorts of events aside rather than seeing the obvious... and it IS obvious to ME when poltergeists are around, because I dealt with them for years when I was younger, with other people witnessing the manifestations, and seeing them respond to me, on several occasions, just FYI.
In my experience, poltergeists have never been aggressive, but that doesn't mean it's not dismaying to have them around; they try hard to get attention, and seem to really enjoy making off with small personal items and then putting them in some weird place, always prominently displayed, and making an escalating amount of racket until I talk to them. Despite what some people think, they are NOT "exciting" or "fun," and you would NOT want to have them around you; by about the 200th time you wake up to them banging around, or have to hunt all over for some little item that shows up in often the same weird spot, you get VERY tired of it.
This part of karma I do NOT want to investigate more closely.
Thursday, April 15, 2004
Thursday again, and Don the vampire looked REALLY hot
What a wardrobe that man has!! I DO wish he'd chuck it all and go naked like the other men, of course, hehehehehe.
Mad Mad House was a study in human weakness today. Last week's loser was smart enough to try to work past the awkwardness of being with those who tried to get rid of him, but it wasn't enough; 2 out of the 3 who had voted against him exerted themselves to get him booted, and they succeeded, with the help of one of the judges who consulted "the ancestors," who told her what she already believed, not surprisingly, even though what she believed was in error... beware the person who believes in other powers that "speak" to them, because once they get an idea in their head that is "from the powers" it's beyond the reach of logic and reason.
The sociopath was chugging busily along; he focused on the guy he could get rid of that day, and kissed up to the girl who could cast the tie-breaking vote, and no one seems to be catching on to him. Sociopaths are scarily able to fool all of the people all of the time, and they're pros at turning people against each other based on lies, and at making people think they really care, and they do... about themselves.
The girl who's the forerunner gained more ground today, I think, because she was taking the higher road while others were busy scheming and backstabbing-we can all learn from that. As time passes, people forget who started it, who attacked who and who is defending, and which stuff was made up by troublemakers... all they see is fighting going on, and they wrongly judge all the participants to be equal.
Now, we have 3 hot girls and the sociopathic guy remaining in the competition; if the girls act the way men always claim women do, they're going to be fighting for his attention, and to get rid of each other... while he plays them off of each other and makes plans to spend his winnings.
Will any of the girls be smart enough to realize that they need to join forces and get the sociopath kicked out to keep him from winning? They're young and pretty, and so probably not used to having to scheme; the sociopath IS an expert at schemes, though, and, barring any glaring mistakes in judgment from him, he'll get the frontrunner kicked out and then make short work of the other 2 girls... sigh.
Mad Mad House was a study in human weakness today. Last week's loser was smart enough to try to work past the awkwardness of being with those who tried to get rid of him, but it wasn't enough; 2 out of the 3 who had voted against him exerted themselves to get him booted, and they succeeded, with the help of one of the judges who consulted "the ancestors," who told her what she already believed, not surprisingly, even though what she believed was in error... beware the person who believes in other powers that "speak" to them, because once they get an idea in their head that is "from the powers" it's beyond the reach of logic and reason.
The sociopath was chugging busily along; he focused on the guy he could get rid of that day, and kissed up to the girl who could cast the tie-breaking vote, and no one seems to be catching on to him. Sociopaths are scarily able to fool all of the people all of the time, and they're pros at turning people against each other based on lies, and at making people think they really care, and they do... about themselves.
The girl who's the forerunner gained more ground today, I think, because she was taking the higher road while others were busy scheming and backstabbing-we can all learn from that. As time passes, people forget who started it, who attacked who and who is defending, and which stuff was made up by troublemakers... all they see is fighting going on, and they wrongly judge all the participants to be equal.
Now, we have 3 hot girls and the sociopathic guy remaining in the competition; if the girls act the way men always claim women do, they're going to be fighting for his attention, and to get rid of each other... while he plays them off of each other and makes plans to spend his winnings.
Will any of the girls be smart enough to realize that they need to join forces and get the sociopath kicked out to keep him from winning? They're young and pretty, and so probably not used to having to scheme; the sociopath IS an expert at schemes, though, and, barring any glaring mistakes in judgment from him, he'll get the frontrunner kicked out and then make short work of the other 2 girls... sigh.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Who... or what... has a soul?
The quick answer from most people is that every human has a soul; there are a variety of answers as to what other creatures might have souls. If you have strong religious beliefs about this, this may be as far as you want to read.
When a person is evil, we sometimes refer to them as "soulless," and I think that may not be accidental; I think that, just as every other part of us can go wrong during fetal development, it's entirely possible for a person to never grow a soul, or to grow one that is stunted or malformed, so to speak, and thus actually BE soulless... since my best guess is that the development of the soul is tied to brain development, there would be something wrong in the brain that would prevent the creation of a normal soul-maybe the same wrongness in the brain that leads to the sociopathy found in most violent criminals?
Could a person start out with a soul and then lose it, or have it become damaged? Every bit of the brain has the possibility for being messed up by illnesses, injuries, and emotional trauma, so... it's a possibility, yes.
At what part in life might one expect to have a soul? From my perspective, you'd have to have reached the point of being able to THINK, to feel something more than hunger, cold, etc, and to have empathy, something all sociopaths lack... maybe by a year old? I'd like to be able to ask a child development specialist about that one.
What about animals? Some people believe that no animal other than humans has a soul... but aren't the eyes supposed to be the windows of the soul? Have you ever looked into the eyes of a cat or dog? Was it THAT different from looking into human eyes? James Herriot, the famous vet and author of wonderful books like "All Creatures Great and Small," provided an excellent insight into this subject in one of his stories, in which an elderly woman is concerned that her beloved pets won't be joining her in heaven, because animals supposedly have no souls; he tells her that he believes a soul to be shown by the capacity for love and loyalty and such, and that many animals, including hers, DO show these qualities, and so they DID have souls. My sentiments exactly.
Some folks think that every living creature has a soul, and by my view of animism they have to have SOME degree of the energy that makes up a soul, but as to what sorts of creatures have souls in the way we usually mean it, as a spiritual version of themselves that would remain after death and contain their thoughts and personality... I guess we'd need to include creatures that seem to have thoughts and personality, such as cats, dogs, and other mammals kept as pets, the great apes that are scarily similar to us and have self-awareness, elephants, because they understand death and show attachment to the bones of their beloved dead, dolphins and porpoises, which have rescued drowning humans... and how many others? Birds? Reptiles? Fish? ROACHES? I can't imagine that roaches have thoughts or personality, but there are folks who claim that critters in those other categories do; I don't know any non-mammals well enough to have an opinion, so I try to keep an open mind. Except about roaches. ;-)
When a person is evil, we sometimes refer to them as "soulless," and I think that may not be accidental; I think that, just as every other part of us can go wrong during fetal development, it's entirely possible for a person to never grow a soul, or to grow one that is stunted or malformed, so to speak, and thus actually BE soulless... since my best guess is that the development of the soul is tied to brain development, there would be something wrong in the brain that would prevent the creation of a normal soul-maybe the same wrongness in the brain that leads to the sociopathy found in most violent criminals?
Could a person start out with a soul and then lose it, or have it become damaged? Every bit of the brain has the possibility for being messed up by illnesses, injuries, and emotional trauma, so... it's a possibility, yes.
At what part in life might one expect to have a soul? From my perspective, you'd have to have reached the point of being able to THINK, to feel something more than hunger, cold, etc, and to have empathy, something all sociopaths lack... maybe by a year old? I'd like to be able to ask a child development specialist about that one.
What about animals? Some people believe that no animal other than humans has a soul... but aren't the eyes supposed to be the windows of the soul? Have you ever looked into the eyes of a cat or dog? Was it THAT different from looking into human eyes? James Herriot, the famous vet and author of wonderful books like "All Creatures Great and Small," provided an excellent insight into this subject in one of his stories, in which an elderly woman is concerned that her beloved pets won't be joining her in heaven, because animals supposedly have no souls; he tells her that he believes a soul to be shown by the capacity for love and loyalty and such, and that many animals, including hers, DO show these qualities, and so they DID have souls. My sentiments exactly.
Some folks think that every living creature has a soul, and by my view of animism they have to have SOME degree of the energy that makes up a soul, but as to what sorts of creatures have souls in the way we usually mean it, as a spiritual version of themselves that would remain after death and contain their thoughts and personality... I guess we'd need to include creatures that seem to have thoughts and personality, such as cats, dogs, and other mammals kept as pets, the great apes that are scarily similar to us and have self-awareness, elephants, because they understand death and show attachment to the bones of their beloved dead, dolphins and porpoises, which have rescued drowning humans... and how many others? Birds? Reptiles? Fish? ROACHES? I can't imagine that roaches have thoughts or personality, but there are folks who claim that critters in those other categories do; I don't know any non-mammals well enough to have an opinion, so I try to keep an open mind. Except about roaches. ;-)
What's the nature of humor?
Is there anything more delightful than having a good laugh? Is there anything more lighthearted, innocent and fun than cracking jokes and sharing mirth with others?
What do we find funny? There are puns, and other plays on words, that we find sort of funny, and things like belching the alphabet and that armpit thing that sounds like flatulence that amuse us, but there's alot of groaning along with the laughter with that sort of thing-it's not humor in its purest sense. So what is?
Can you think of a single joke whose punchline does NOT involve someone (or some category of people) being criticized, ridiculed, humiliated, fooled, grossed out or mistreated, or failing, screwing up, getting hurt or dying? Neither can I. What does this enjoyment at the expense of others, this mean-spiritedness that entertains us, that we call HUMOR, say about us as a species? If aliens land and ask us why we find the mishaps and sufferings of our fellow humans to be FUNNY, what could we tell them?
What do we find funny? There are puns, and other plays on words, that we find sort of funny, and things like belching the alphabet and that armpit thing that sounds like flatulence that amuse us, but there's alot of groaning along with the laughter with that sort of thing-it's not humor in its purest sense. So what is?
Can you think of a single joke whose punchline does NOT involve someone (or some category of people) being criticized, ridiculed, humiliated, fooled, grossed out or mistreated, or failing, screwing up, getting hurt or dying? Neither can I. What does this enjoyment at the expense of others, this mean-spiritedness that entertains us, that we call HUMOR, say about us as a species? If aliens land and ask us why we find the mishaps and sufferings of our fellow humans to be FUNNY, what could we tell them?
Monday, April 12, 2004
How do we decide what's "OK"?
For the most part, we DON'T make any conscious decision; our opinion comes from the societal norm, our family of origin, our religion, our peer group, and advertising... anything EXCEPT a conscious analysis.
We tend to believe that what is seen as OK now is "objectively OK," and thus has always been seen that way, and always will be, both in our culture and in every other... but it sounds pretty silly when laid out that way, doesn't it? We also have enormous blind spots as to where what we think is OK is wildly inconsistent depending on the circumstances, and as to where what we think is OK, or not, is due to recent fads in our thinking.
Do you think it's ok for a parent to take a belt to a child? Probably not... but it wasn't that long ago that everyone would have said "of course" to that question... and their kids committed far fewer crimes, worked harder in school, and became adults living full adult lives at a much earlier age. Should we therefore reconsider what forms of discipline are OK? WILL we?
Do you think that female circumcision is OK? You're probably horrified by the idea, but, the cultures that practice it are horrified at the idea of NOT circumcising the girls, because they believe that if they don't destroy the ability of a woman to experience sexual pleasure, she cannot be virtuous... that they will doom her to be a wicked creature if they don't do it to her. WE think it's OK to let girls act with very little restraint... but, is the horrifying level of teen pregnancies and teen AIDS cases OK, then? We think it's OK for women to act out their sexuality any way the choose... but, is the existence of all the illegitimate kids living in dire poverty with their mothers OK? I guarantee you that those who believe in female circumcision see these things as "proof" of what happens when you leave girls and women "uncut."
Don't get me wrong, I personally think that female circumcision is AWFUL, because of the many medical problems that these girls and women will always have, and because it is their right to HAVE sexual pleasure just like men do, but the idea of having SOME sort of control on sex (which always seems to be imposed on the females only, sigh), rather than the free-for-all that we have now, seems OK to me... but probably not to YOU, and I DO understand how tough it is to get the genie back into the bottle, to take back freedoms that people are accustomed to.
Which should count more towards what's OK; personal freedom or economic and reproductive realities? Is it OK to roll the dice, so to speak, and hope that we can have our cake and eat it too, have sexual freedom and not get saddled with a disease or unwanted pregnancy? If we succeed in our gamble, is it OK to look down on those who fail in the same gamble? The more you think about sexual issues, the less certain it becomes as to what is OK.
Do you think it's always OK for a man to have consensual sex with his wife? Sure, why wouldn't you? What if his wife is 15, is THAT OK? You'd have to say yes, as we believe in our culture that consensual sex between husband and wife is OK even if she's a minor. If you take that SAME man and SAME 15 year old girl, and both are willing to consent to sex, but they are NOT married, is THAT OK? Suddenly, it's NOT, because she's a minor, and not even legally ALLOWED to consent... unless she's married, in which case she magically CAN consent. So, is it or is it NOT OK for a man to have sex with a 15 year old girl who willingly agrees? There's no one answer.
We've gone off the deep end with preventing child molestation to the point that girls who have reached mating age are expected to remain untouched for years after, and not even be DESIRED, as if biology can be changed just like that. What if we allow no marriages for minors, does that fix everything, by making sex with a minor girl always bad? No, because if she DOES have sex and gets pregnant, how can we deny her and the baby the benefits of her being married to the father of the child? If he marries her, how can we then have a man not legally allowed ANY sexual contact with his wife? We're going to have to have more societal change before we have a way for all of these cases to have reasonable solutions that are OK.
A hundred years ago, the very IDEA of child abuse didn't exist; parents could do literally anything to their child short of murder, and it was seen as OK-no one interfered. That was horrible, but the currently fashionable lines of thought have gone to the other extreme; it's now virtually impossible for ANY parent to have their parenting fully scrutinized without finding themselves "guilty" of some sort of "abuse." Oh, you let your kid have cookies, you had a glass of wine with dinner, you didn't barricade your bedroom door and the kid walked in and saw you naked, you let them have too much and spoiled them, you didn't let them have ENOUGH and they feel miserable and unloved, you didn't control them enough and they got into trouble in the 5 seconds you weren't watching them, you controlled them too much and they felt like they lived like prisoners, you didn't stop and do an in-depth frigging analysis before every action you took to see if there could possibly be negative consequences from things that seems harmless.... you're EVIL, you're an ABUSER, you're responsible for every moment of unhappiness the kids will have their entire LIVES!! Is this sort of demonization of what in reality are normal parents and normal parenting OK? Not for long, at least, I hope... but people with no clue about kids or parenting are going to use this sort of nonsense to make everything that goes wrong in the world the fault of everyone's parents for decades to come.
What's even scarier is that parents declining to get involved in the education of their children, or to set and enforce ANY rules, is widely seen as OK ("I'm my kid's FRIEND" is the warning sign of this sort of parent); it appears that we've made every possible parental action so fraught with danger that it's gotten twisted around to be OK to not parent at all... am I hopelessly old-fashioned, or should that NEVER be OK?
What will we think is OK 50 years from now? What will we NOT think is OK that seems fine to us now? We can't know, of course, and that should make us a little bit cautious about the standards we try to shove down people's throats TODAY. Our best bet overall is to show that great oxymoron, common sense, and keep in mind that we are human beings, not robots, that we have certain needs, that we feel pain, stress and fear and REACT to it, and that we are biologically programmed in many areas of behavior; any "shoulds" that people come up with that show no grasp of these facts should never be given a moment's credence, as they can NEVER be the basis of a standard that people can actually live by.
What's OK for a man, for a woman, for an adult, for a child, for any kind of person, MUST have some connection to the reality of biology, psychology, and modern life; with gender roles, relationships, the value and expectations placed on kids, and every facet of how we live our lives, changing faster than we can keep up with, our definition of what's OK needs to be constantly evolving, constantly being refined to dovetail with what is possible to do and reasonable to ask of others. We need to learn from the past, from other cultures, and from what science tells us about our true nature.
It's right and good to expect more, and better, from people where applicable, BUT, it needs to be OK to be HUMAN, too, and to show a certain degree of frailty without being criminalized or demonized.
OK?
We tend to believe that what is seen as OK now is "objectively OK," and thus has always been seen that way, and always will be, both in our culture and in every other... but it sounds pretty silly when laid out that way, doesn't it? We also have enormous blind spots as to where what we think is OK is wildly inconsistent depending on the circumstances, and as to where what we think is OK, or not, is due to recent fads in our thinking.
Do you think it's ok for a parent to take a belt to a child? Probably not... but it wasn't that long ago that everyone would have said "of course" to that question... and their kids committed far fewer crimes, worked harder in school, and became adults living full adult lives at a much earlier age. Should we therefore reconsider what forms of discipline are OK? WILL we?
Do you think that female circumcision is OK? You're probably horrified by the idea, but, the cultures that practice it are horrified at the idea of NOT circumcising the girls, because they believe that if they don't destroy the ability of a woman to experience sexual pleasure, she cannot be virtuous... that they will doom her to be a wicked creature if they don't do it to her. WE think it's OK to let girls act with very little restraint... but, is the horrifying level of teen pregnancies and teen AIDS cases OK, then? We think it's OK for women to act out their sexuality any way the choose... but, is the existence of all the illegitimate kids living in dire poverty with their mothers OK? I guarantee you that those who believe in female circumcision see these things as "proof" of what happens when you leave girls and women "uncut."
Don't get me wrong, I personally think that female circumcision is AWFUL, because of the many medical problems that these girls and women will always have, and because it is their right to HAVE sexual pleasure just like men do, but the idea of having SOME sort of control on sex (which always seems to be imposed on the females only, sigh), rather than the free-for-all that we have now, seems OK to me... but probably not to YOU, and I DO understand how tough it is to get the genie back into the bottle, to take back freedoms that people are accustomed to.
Which should count more towards what's OK; personal freedom or economic and reproductive realities? Is it OK to roll the dice, so to speak, and hope that we can have our cake and eat it too, have sexual freedom and not get saddled with a disease or unwanted pregnancy? If we succeed in our gamble, is it OK to look down on those who fail in the same gamble? The more you think about sexual issues, the less certain it becomes as to what is OK.
Do you think it's always OK for a man to have consensual sex with his wife? Sure, why wouldn't you? What if his wife is 15, is THAT OK? You'd have to say yes, as we believe in our culture that consensual sex between husband and wife is OK even if she's a minor. If you take that SAME man and SAME 15 year old girl, and both are willing to consent to sex, but they are NOT married, is THAT OK? Suddenly, it's NOT, because she's a minor, and not even legally ALLOWED to consent... unless she's married, in which case she magically CAN consent. So, is it or is it NOT OK for a man to have sex with a 15 year old girl who willingly agrees? There's no one answer.
We've gone off the deep end with preventing child molestation to the point that girls who have reached mating age are expected to remain untouched for years after, and not even be DESIRED, as if biology can be changed just like that. What if we allow no marriages for minors, does that fix everything, by making sex with a minor girl always bad? No, because if she DOES have sex and gets pregnant, how can we deny her and the baby the benefits of her being married to the father of the child? If he marries her, how can we then have a man not legally allowed ANY sexual contact with his wife? We're going to have to have more societal change before we have a way for all of these cases to have reasonable solutions that are OK.
A hundred years ago, the very IDEA of child abuse didn't exist; parents could do literally anything to their child short of murder, and it was seen as OK-no one interfered. That was horrible, but the currently fashionable lines of thought have gone to the other extreme; it's now virtually impossible for ANY parent to have their parenting fully scrutinized without finding themselves "guilty" of some sort of "abuse." Oh, you let your kid have cookies, you had a glass of wine with dinner, you didn't barricade your bedroom door and the kid walked in and saw you naked, you let them have too much and spoiled them, you didn't let them have ENOUGH and they feel miserable and unloved, you didn't control them enough and they got into trouble in the 5 seconds you weren't watching them, you controlled them too much and they felt like they lived like prisoners, you didn't stop and do an in-depth frigging analysis before every action you took to see if there could possibly be negative consequences from things that seems harmless.... you're EVIL, you're an ABUSER, you're responsible for every moment of unhappiness the kids will have their entire LIVES!! Is this sort of demonization of what in reality are normal parents and normal parenting OK? Not for long, at least, I hope... but people with no clue about kids or parenting are going to use this sort of nonsense to make everything that goes wrong in the world the fault of everyone's parents for decades to come.
What's even scarier is that parents declining to get involved in the education of their children, or to set and enforce ANY rules, is widely seen as OK ("I'm my kid's FRIEND" is the warning sign of this sort of parent); it appears that we've made every possible parental action so fraught with danger that it's gotten twisted around to be OK to not parent at all... am I hopelessly old-fashioned, or should that NEVER be OK?
What will we think is OK 50 years from now? What will we NOT think is OK that seems fine to us now? We can't know, of course, and that should make us a little bit cautious about the standards we try to shove down people's throats TODAY. Our best bet overall is to show that great oxymoron, common sense, and keep in mind that we are human beings, not robots, that we have certain needs, that we feel pain, stress and fear and REACT to it, and that we are biologically programmed in many areas of behavior; any "shoulds" that people come up with that show no grasp of these facts should never be given a moment's credence, as they can NEVER be the basis of a standard that people can actually live by.
What's OK for a man, for a woman, for an adult, for a child, for any kind of person, MUST have some connection to the reality of biology, psychology, and modern life; with gender roles, relationships, the value and expectations placed on kids, and every facet of how we live our lives, changing faster than we can keep up with, our definition of what's OK needs to be constantly evolving, constantly being refined to dovetail with what is possible to do and reasonable to ask of others. We need to learn from the past, from other cultures, and from what science tells us about our true nature.
It's right and good to expect more, and better, from people where applicable, BUT, it needs to be OK to be HUMAN, too, and to show a certain degree of frailty without being criminalized or demonized.
OK?
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Another Easter "surprise"
I hope you all had a wonderful Easter. :-)
I got another little Easter surprise: I have a slew of suncatchers, each attached to the windows with 2 suction cups, all of which are identical... except for ONE, and that one drove me CRAZY (yes, I AM aware that that's anal, lol). Finally, I got another suction cup that matched all the others, and had been badgering my husband for several days to swap them (I'm apparently too weak to press them on hard enough so they'll get true suction and stay up); as always, he was dragging his heels. When I got up today and looked at my suncatchers, I saw that one of the suction cups had fallen off... guess which one? (And no, it had never done so before, hadn't been on there any longer than any of the others, doesn't get any different amount of sun than the ones around it, and it had the lightest suncatcher hanging from it, NOT the heaviest.) Since he would have had to re-stick the messed-up one anyways, he (grudgingly) agreed to put in the new one. :-)
I suppose I should add a spiritual comment, since this IS Easter... I don't know whether or not Jesus existed, as I wasn't there, and there is no proof (no, an old book is NOT proof) that he did, or, of course, any proof that he DIDN'T. If he DOES exist, imagine how he feels about today being more about bunnies and candy than about him. No, scratch that; imagine how he feels seeing that those who claim to be his most ardent followers are more likely to be big into criticizing, condemning, and trying to control the private lives of others than they are to be into loving, forgiving, and helping others, as he supposedly taught. If he was ever human, he would WEEP...
I got another little Easter surprise: I have a slew of suncatchers, each attached to the windows with 2 suction cups, all of which are identical... except for ONE, and that one drove me CRAZY (yes, I AM aware that that's anal, lol). Finally, I got another suction cup that matched all the others, and had been badgering my husband for several days to swap them (I'm apparently too weak to press them on hard enough so they'll get true suction and stay up); as always, he was dragging his heels. When I got up today and looked at my suncatchers, I saw that one of the suction cups had fallen off... guess which one? (And no, it had never done so before, hadn't been on there any longer than any of the others, doesn't get any different amount of sun than the ones around it, and it had the lightest suncatcher hanging from it, NOT the heaviest.) Since he would have had to re-stick the messed-up one anyways, he (grudgingly) agreed to put in the new one. :-)
I suppose I should add a spiritual comment, since this IS Easter... I don't know whether or not Jesus existed, as I wasn't there, and there is no proof (no, an old book is NOT proof) that he did, or, of course, any proof that he DIDN'T. If he DOES exist, imagine how he feels about today being more about bunnies and candy than about him. No, scratch that; imagine how he feels seeing that those who claim to be his most ardent followers are more likely to be big into criticizing, condemning, and trying to control the private lives of others than they are to be into loving, forgiving, and helping others, as he supposedly taught. If he was ever human, he would WEEP...
