tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-71968295531535777752024-02-20T22:07:33.572-08:00Torrent of ConsciousnessMelanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.comBlogger495125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-63787153119592262592016-01-10T06:53:00.000-08:002016-01-10T07:01:18.160-08:00Week 2 of the ChallengeApparently, on week 2 I need to learn to read. No really. Last week was all about getting up earlier, which I actually only managed a couple of days, but I don't really care, I have my own views on that.<br />
<br />
ANYWAY reading it again, I was also supposed to improve my nutrition and do "sport" in week one. For some reason I thought these came later. So first let's deal with those.<br />
<br />
<b>Part One</b><br />
<br />
I eat well. I've never been one for a lot of sweet stuff, I cook 99% from scratch (I still buy ketchup and mayo, and that's not likely to change), and I have a personal dislike of over-indulgence. Look - this is not a judgement. If you pig out, be it regularly or occasionally, that's up to you. I hate the feeling of being stuffed, and I stop eating BEFORE that happens. I've had people hate me for this. I've been called names. I've been envied. The whole range. But it's not virtue, it's comfort. I have no desire to feel uncomfortable, so...I don't do it. Fucking logical, sorry if you're not. No, really. You know the old joke of the man who goes to the doctor and says "Doc, Doc, it hurts when I do THIS..." so the doctor says, well, don't do it. That.<br />
<br />
However, you only have to look at me to see that I eat too much anyway. So, clearly, I need to stop <i>before</i> I'm satisfied, and THAT dear friends is extremely hard. I don't believe in dieting. No...wait. Let's get the word right. What you eat is your diet. That's what diet means. So...we all diet, all of the time. What I mean is, I don't believe in fad diets. Low this, low that....load of bollocks. If you want to be thinner, you eat less food. It's simple. Got animals? Feed them less, they get thinner. Very, very simple. In theory. Doing it is quite another matter. But it makes life easier so I am attempting to eat less, and I actually began this morning with one slice of toast instead of two. If anyone is shocked at this, so you should be. Can I keep it up? Don't know. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot.<br />
<br />
Sport.<br />
<br />
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......<br />
<br />
No. I hate sport. I don't even watch sport. I don't "get" sport. If anyone wants to try to tell me why it's good or whatever, good luck. I played a bit of tennis and squash when I was younger and had a lot of energy to burn off, but I discovered that I could do it in other ways, which didn't require funny clothes, money, appointments, or a partner. I can't run, so that was out (I can't run. I physically can't. I can sort of waddle fast, to catch a bus, but my limbs just don't do whatever they are supposed to do to co-ordinate a run. In my only ever long-distance run, at school, I came in behind two kids with asthma and one with mild C.P........FFS). But I used to walk for miles, cycle even farther. Since that stopped I've relied on dancing and physical labour, with a bit of yoga. These are not sport. These are anti-creaky methods. If I don't move around frequently, and in an extreme manner, I seize up. I have a treadmill too, and that is going to be my best friend for this part of the challenge. I need to strengthen the muscles in my back, and this is how I think I can do it. We'll see.<br />
<br />
<b>Part Two</b><br />
<br />
Make someone a birthday or celebration cake.<br />
<br />
Conveniently we have a birthday boy in the house in a couple of weeks, so without giving away any hints, because he reads this, a certain husband will be getting a cake.<br />
<br />
I am not brilliant at cake decorating. I can bake, no problem. I make great cakes. Sir will require chocolate, so I need to buy some (funny that) and I'll save the remaining details until later.<br />
<br />
<b>Part Three</b><br />
<br />
This is where I add a personal thing that I know needs doing. Mine's a bit bizarre as a challenge, but it's going to be harder than ALL of the above. Yeah. I need new glasses. Badly. Urgently.<br />
<br />
This. Is. Hell.<br />
<br />
I am a bit vain, I admit, so I agonize over anything I buy, but that's not the real problem here. Well, OK, it sort of is....I'll explain. First you have to understand that I don't do fashion. I never have, even back when one was supposed to. These days there is freedom in esthetics. You just do as you please. Pick any era. Go nuts. I am not conservative in how I dress. Quite the opposite. AND I don't dress for others, I dress for me. All that said, there's nothing makes you look old or frumpy faster than the wrong glasses. So am I daring?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFnY3zNMQmZsWEkIE5lsh2fEnEjiUDbsdbuZG-2-UaC5tl5lCLZ1xvKzvXnIFo_o_ItYMGiJ7e_ke_LFf3lGmexcLtWwvEk9ZT21dHLe1rhQ1bLE78CvqLU6Jgm5L7oBXfa8IrM1YxKq3z/s1600/Starfish.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFnY3zNMQmZsWEkIE5lsh2fEnEjiUDbsdbuZG-2-UaC5tl5lCLZ1xvKzvXnIFo_o_ItYMGiJ7e_ke_LFf3lGmexcLtWwvEk9ZT21dHLe1rhQ1bLE78CvqLU6Jgm5L7oBXfa8IrM1YxKq3z/s320/Starfish.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Hell no. I'm boring. For the last yibble years I have gone almost always for the whole minimalist rimless thing, which is the cowardly choice.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqe31kB5Wtzp0WqYzeqC9z7hMeFaJMH62IMFKIDp2umN1t8aWpa8SgbsdYyRvcmWz-TXK9c-ZN7ZSpucKokaDrthRL-HNkEkcwIxOKspkvlzpzqKpF0ntzqbUuRbUxLUCw8MrqCInA-BNP/s1600/purple.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqe31kB5Wtzp0WqYzeqC9z7hMeFaJMH62IMFKIDp2umN1t8aWpa8SgbsdYyRvcmWz-TXK9c-ZN7ZSpucKokaDrthRL-HNkEkcwIxOKspkvlzpzqKpF0ntzqbUuRbUxLUCw8MrqCInA-BNP/s320/purple.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And this has got to stop. They get wobbly and I hate that. I spend half my life with a tiny screwdriver, doing up tiny screws....which I can't see, obviously. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
So, this week I'm going to put a gun in my back, and buy new glasses. I may whine a lot. First world problems, but there we are, that's MY challenge this week. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-65019173316478825252016-01-09T07:11:00.001-08:002016-01-09T11:04:16.647-08:00Kindness and Mischief<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
Hello, my name is Melanie, and I'm annoying. I don't mean to be, it's a sort of side effect. I'm not really all that good at anything in particular, but I'm very good at being me. I'm so good at it, in fact, that I've come to rely on it. Apparently this isn't normal, despite what you might think. Apparently I'm supposed to be full of self-doubts and angst.<br />
<br />
It's not that I don't give a shit about what others think. I take all feedback, as offered, consider it, and toss the unimportant stuff out the window. I have this one objective really - I try to be kind. I think it's the most important thing you can do. I like people. I don't always want to be around them, especially some of them, but I want everyone to be happy, so I just do my bit where I can.<br />
<br />
The problem is, my nature is mischievous. I like fun. I like to laugh, and I find it very easy, because I see the funny side of most things. I like to play. I like to be silly. It just comes naturally.<br />
<br />
And these two competing aspects of my personality have been there since day one, so it's definitely me, it's who I am. Most of the time it's OK, and then every so often it isn't. The mischief takes over.<br />
<br />
I don't apologize because I don't think it's ever really harmful. I mean, I don't shoot people or spike their drinks (apart from that one time), and my practical jokes are very minor. The only person who has ever got physically hurt from any pranks is me, and I know when to stop with teasing. I have a good "hurt feelings" radar, and if somebody begins to look uncomfortable, I immediately stop. I wish I could teach that, actually.<br />
<br />
What I'm trying to say, really, is that there really is a difference - and not a small one - between not giving a shit, and not giving a shit. Because the feelings of other people are not really my responsibility, unless I deliberately hurt them. The entire thing is about intent.<br />
<br />
We talk about this a lot, one way and another. Everywhere. All of us. All of the time. We may not see it as all part of the same topic, because on one occasion we're saying "Wow, some people are really NEEDY....." and on another occasion we're saying "Politeness costs nothing". And so on.<br />
<br />
So, it's complicated really. On the one hand we're all fed up to the teeth with those who are offended by everything, and for whom even walking on eggshells would not be enough, you'd have to levitate above them. On the other hand the world is full of arseholes who blunder about being tactless constantly, no matter how often you hint, and who are sometimes cruel. On purpose. And don't care.<br />
<br />
Somewhere in the middle is sanity.<br />
<br />
You know, it's a bit of a balancing act. If you are cowardly, you say little, or you become a "people pleaser". I am no good at staying quiet.<br />
<br />
Oh, I can do it in small ways. If somebody says "What do you think......" I am perfectly capable of lying through my teeth so as not to hurt their feelings. At the very least, I hold back on what I'm really thinking. We all learn to do that, some of the time at least.<br />
<br />
Quite often I choose to say nothing whatsoever rather than "get into it" with somebody. I mean, as much as I enjoy controversial discussions in my online world, it's different in a local social setting. Generally I follow that old maxim of making politics and religion taboo. There truly is a difference between party talk and Facebook talk. Well, if you have half a brain anyway.<br />
<br />
Sometimes I choose to say nothing here online too. It's just not worth it with some arguments. Even when I know for certain that I'm 100% correct. Some discussions and some people just have a big sign over them saying "DON'T" to me.<br />
<br />
This week I quietly and politely bowed out of a discussion that had dramatically changed topic, not because it had changed, but because I suddenly had a flash of realisation that the person I was talking to was compromised. I'm not quite sure how I knew, call it a hunch if you like, but it was as obvious as if the nutter on the bus had asked me to hold his camel. It made me pull back so fast, it caused others in the discussion to assume MY feelings were hurt. All sorted out now, but the point is that even silence can be a problem. It can give the wrong impression.<br />
<br />
My son Tom, who has Asperger's, sees the world very differently to the rest of us, and sometimes finds our world, our society, our ways, very confusing. I have learned so much from him, from his "angle" that I always say he is my greatest teacher. I am quite sincere in this.<br />
<br />
It's not unusual, if he is in an argument, to just go completely silent, because he doesn't know what to say. It isn't lack of logic, he has more of that than most of us. It's when emotion and logic are both involved and get tangled up together. He simply finds it harder than most of us to untangle it. We generally don't bother - whch is why fights start. I'm the type who carefully untangles them, to keep things calm. Tom just gets lost.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem we have when communicating is when two "sides" are using different levels of logic and emotion. Of course, depending on intellect and mental health, people may only have limited amounts to offer. So, what happens, for me anyway, is when I am coming from a place of logic, and I see my "opponent" coming from almost pure emotion, I stop. I may change the topic, or just the tone. I may make light of it.....the joker's escape route.<br />
<br />
They say it's better to be kind than to be right. I think this is true. I think the problem with quite a lot of people is that they forget that. And we ALL forget it from time to time.<br />
<br />
So, why mischief?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiubK9tmJzzhrIZNqWMYY_3IWMJF9necJ_BpnB6A1JUwHW_4KUAR_Ik7VCaVCwJ0LLhiFZEixlYoJth8kERzcp1NqLE_C9Frm3ic7zYYNipXsDKDAT-j_QSfgroJK-D4dHIw7cGXIcy1kJW/s1600/kindness+and+mischief.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiubK9tmJzzhrIZNqWMYY_3IWMJF9necJ_BpnB6A1JUwHW_4KUAR_Ik7VCaVCwJ0LLhiFZEixlYoJth8kERzcp1NqLE_C9Frm3ic7zYYNipXsDKDAT-j_QSfgroJK-D4dHIw7cGXIcy1kJW/s320/kindness+and+mischief.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Because all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy. Because it lightens the mood. Because our society is crazy and we reflect that. Because there is such a thing as harmless mischief. Because being serious all the time is hard work. And boring. </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
And this does matter. It's good not to care too much about how people see you. If you're too self-conscious it holds you back in so many ways. It can really be a huge problem. It can make you a victim. You don't need that. On the other hand if you are so rhino-hided that you can't see when you've gone too far, you cause harm. As always, in the middle lies balance. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz8FbNVcBt29CWkNiv5Bnvt6v1XFch18Zlq05RYZ7gGjoqkkYdRBXIaeqX8LxlNnSQyXe5PYrJovA3CyGiUOLw7t1NhA8eEWdsY8Mc2JcH_j3cRSIdkeb-megMMLLO0-UB24K_FMRZgdno/s1600/do+no+harm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjz8FbNVcBt29CWkNiv5Bnvt6v1XFch18Zlq05RYZ7gGjoqkkYdRBXIaeqX8LxlNnSQyXe5PYrJovA3CyGiUOLw7t1NhA8eEWdsY8Mc2JcH_j3cRSIdkeb-megMMLLO0-UB24K_FMRZgdno/s320/do+no+harm.jpg" width="189" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-41709182336490158052016-01-03T06:20:00.000-08:002016-01-03T06:20:48.282-08:00Week One of "The Challenge"I was inspired by two lists circulating on Facebook of ways to improve oneself over time. It coincides with a new year, and while I'm not huge on resolutions, it's as good a time as any. The best time to begin anything is always "right now".<br />
<br />
Here are the two lists:<br />
<a href="https://www.blogger.com/goog_1239499225"><br /></a>
<a href="http://brightside.me/article/how-to-change-your-life-for-the-better-in-just-one-month-505">http://brightside.me/article/how-to-change-your-life-for-the-better-in-just-one-month-505</a>/<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/12/52-fun-things-try-a-new-one-each-week-of-the-year/">http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/12/52-fun-things-try-a-new-one-each-week-of-the-year/</a><br />
<br />
I have back-up copies of both in case the pages are removed for any reason.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm a great believer in compromise. So I don't think you have to follow these 100% to meet the challenge. But there are also limits to what can be considered taking part. So each week I'm going to blog, hopefully on the preceding Sunday, giving my thoughts on the week's challenge, how it could be adapted, and any other ideas I have. If you find this helpful, here it is. If not, no worries.<br />
<br />
So.<br />
<br />
<b>Week One, Part One - Getting up earlier.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
For many of you a 6am start would be late; people have to get up to get to work, or get kids on an early bus etc. For me 6am just sounds horrific. I'm an early riser in summer, but in winter? 6am is dark and uninviting. So what's the PURPOSE of this week's challenge? It's to give you more time. Maybe some "me time" before everyone else gets up, or less rush for whatever you do have to do. If this involves losing sleep, the idea (I assume) is to go to bed earlier. That's not possible for everyone, but it's one way. Of course, for many, just getting a better night's sleep is all that makes early starts easier. So perhaps that could be your goal. I tell you, I have zero intention of getting up at 6am, but I shall endeavour to get up a little earlier in the spirit of the challenge, to start my day earlier, and therefore fit more in. But I won't feel guilty if I hit the snooze button a couple of times, because I'm a bit of a hedonist. The spirit of the challenge is achievement, and I can do that in other ways.<br />
<br />
<b>Week One, Part Two - Writing a Letter</b><br />
<br />
This is such an old fashioned thing to do, and something I haven't done in years. The person who would appreciate it the most is my mother-in-law, so she will be the recipient. Perhaps you have somebody more interesting to write to, in which case you can make it a real work of art. I see this challenge as having several purposes. A random act of kindness, a creative process, and just getting out of a routine. It's <i>different</i>. Do any of us have nice stationery anymore? Well, I'll decorate a sheet of printer paper. If you absolutely don't have anyone to write to, write to yourself. A promise perhaps, or an apology! Or start a diary. Or create a list of your own challenges. In some form, put pen to paper instead of finger to key. The spirit of this challenge is twofold. Creative writing, and a kindness. You can find something that achieves those.<br />
<br />
<b>Week One, Part Three - My Personal Challenge</b><br />
<br />
The overall spirit of these challenges is to be a better person, and think outside the box. It's easy to get in a rut, and some people are down so deep they need throwing a rope. It's a combination of physical and mental tasks, because they compliment each other, and it's all positive stuff. Not only will you feel a sense of achievement, but everyone around you will benefit. Win-win. If one day or even one week doesn't work out, don't give up. Catch up. If something is just impossible, there's always an alternative. Just keep trying.<br />
<br />
I am adding an extra challenge for myself each week. You can copy mine or think of your own, after all you know best what you need to change in your life. This week I need to sort my books out. It's a long overdue task. I have a lot of books so it will take a week. I shall take everything off the shelf, clean it, and put them back tidily. A few spiders will have to be re-homed.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-79822791137862257792015-12-30T07:57:00.000-08:002015-12-30T07:57:18.373-08:00LifeHere's an interesting one.<br />
<br />
Creationists poke fun at scientists by saying things like "so....there was nothing...and it exploded" and "life from nothing, ha ha".<br /><br />The objection is that, to the creationist, life from non-life ("nothing") is a ridiculous concept.<br />
<br />
I've heard many and various examples of this, and........ I sympathize. That may surprise you. But it's all about what you can wrap your head around, and I have the same problem with other ideas.<br />
<br />
<b>Abiogenesis</b><br />
<br />
Because I've done a bit of study on the current theories of the origin of life, I don't actually have any problem with the idea of simple chemical compounds becoming organic. One of the most recent theories is detailed here:<br /><br /><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum">http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum</a><br />
<br />
Of course, it could be completely wrong, but something along these lines is quite plausible.<br />
<br />
Another popular theory is that we were "seeded" by microbes arriving from other planets, ultimately for other solar systems, other galaxies. Which is fine, but you still need abiogenesis happening somewhere.<br />
<br />
The creationist rejects this, either because it is simply not what his book tells him, or he doesn't understand it and the book version sounds simpler. OK.<br />
<br />
In his version everything is created by God from...............nothing.<br />
<br />
So what's the difference?<br />
<br />
Well, according to scientists, first of all, when they talk about the origin of the universe and the origin of life, <i>these are two different things</i>. The time span between them is considerable (10 billion years) and during that time a lot of other things happened. Gradually. Also, since life began, almost another 4 billion years has passed, giving plenty of time for those simple life forms to evolve.<br />
<br />
In the creationist model, that 10 billion years is whittled down to a week, and this all happened 6,000 years ago, which quite clearly doesn't allow time for very much evolution at all. We barely had time for wolves to become dogs.<br />
<br />
There are other options, of course. I'll come back to that, but for now let's consider these two versions..<br />
<br />
<b>Cosmology</b><br />
<br />
Scientists have never suggested that the Big Bang was the start of the cosmos. It wasn't "matter from nothing". Laws of Physics insist that matter from nothing is not possible. The theory says that there was a singularity of mass, which expanded, and rather suddenly at first. And it is still expanding.<br />
<br />
It is well-known that most of the universe is empty space, more than 99.9999999% in fact. Even the most solid things that exist are mostly empty space. Atoms are mostly empty space. If you take away all that empty space you can reduce the remaining mass down to an incredibly small size. So the whole singularity concept is not really a problem at all. The size could be argued, but of course the question remains, what came before that?<br /><br />And that question exists no matter what your version of origins are. As do many others.<br />
<br />
Those who are not literalists, look at the creationist version as given in the Judeo-Christian tradition as a best guess. Not to be taken seriously, not to be read as science or history, but seen as the best theory the priests could come up with. People wanted to know where it all came from, and after much consideration, this was the story that worked for them. It shouldn't be taken literally.<br />
<br />
And those who say "but nobody really knows" are missing the point. If you don't find the Big Bang Theory compelling, there are other theories. Google it if you are interested. There are serious scientists looking at other possibilities, and maybe one day these will become the prevailing theories. That's how science works. It is a process, an honest process. If something that was standard in the textbooks is found to be wrong, then it is changed.<br />
<br />
It's not a belief system. Anyone, at any time, is at liberty to prove it wrong, and if that proof is good, it will be accepted. The science of cosmology is interesting simply because we are dealing with things long ago and far away that we can't pick up in our hands to observe. It is always going to be full of changing theories. That's the nature of it.<br />
<br />
What cosmology does not get involved in is life. Whereas in the creationist model everything started at once, in the scientific model, life, and subsequently evolution, came later and therefore is part of a separate scientific discipline.<br />
<br />
<b>Evolution</b><br /><br />
One thing is quite clear, the organisms alive today have not always been here, and many of those that once existed are now extinct. Things change.<br />
<br />
Of course we do still have single-celled organisms, very simple lifeforms, and these help us understand evolution, because they do it so fast we can watch it happening. The more complex an organism is, the more changes are required for it to be quite different, so the longer it takes. We can't watch mammals evolve because of the timespan involved. But the principles are exactly the same. This makes it a much easier science, and this is why we are on such solid ground.<br />
<br />
Returning then to the original issue, which is creationists poking fun at scientists for claiming that something came from nothing, it is actually the creationists with the more absurd ideas. Humans from dirt? Women from ribs?<br />
<br />
Oh, it's all good for a laugh. Makes great cartoons. And if you really wanted to have a giggle at somebody's expense you could read the creation myths from other cultures. There are plenty to choose from.<br />
<br />
OR, you could accept creation myths as they are, leave the actual work of figuring all this stuff out to the scientists, and teach your children the latest, most carefully studied theories, because those are what will help them get on in life.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-67778721161089928902015-12-29T07:04:00.001-08:002015-12-29T07:13:53.863-08:00ProselytizersYears ago I was one of the admin team at MSN Religion Forum. We had a few rules and they were pretty simple, just to keep the peace, and mostly it worked. But we had two rules that were a problem, not individually, but together.<br />
<br />
You see, one rule, which we considered very important, was the special freedom of speech that allowed each member of the forums to share their beliefs freely. Really, not much point having a forum if you can't share the topic at hand, after all. All beliefs were treated equally this way, and there was no risk of censorship just because one belief was unpopular.<br />
<br />
Another rule was no proselytizing. Because freedom to discuss religion means freedom not to have that religion attacked. If people spent all their time trying to convert you to their belief system it would get very tedious.<br />
<br />
The problem was that some members of the forums were from belief systems where proselytization was expected or even demanded. And we wouldn't let them do it. Twas a bit of a dilemma. We sorted it out, more or less, with a bit of compromise and grumbling, and our sole regular Jehovah's Witness was very good about it.<br />
<br />
But the conversation didn't go away. Every so often, somebody would mention the Great Commission, and we'd have to say "No"....and there'd be a bit of grumbling.<br />
<br />
I tried to explain what the problem was, but I know for a fact they never understood. Or were they just being stubborn?<br />
<br />
I would say "Proselytization is rude." and they'd feign lack of understanding. Some would explain how they MUST do it, and I'd tell them they had free will (which they were always telling ME), so then they'd switch to what a great kindness it was, sharing their "good news".<br />
<br />
The problem was, it wasn't news. We'd all heard it a gazillion times before. It wasn't even a variation on a theme. It was the exact same stuff, over, and over, and over, and over.......perhaps they thought eventually it would wear us down.<br />
<br />
I would explain, patiently, that it is arrogant to assume what other people "need" to hear. How they were in no position to decide that. "Blank." I really found it hard to believe they actually didn't get it, but it seemed like they didn't.<br />
<br />
Nothing has changed of course. I talk to different people, and explain it to them, without the constraints of forum rules, and I am a little more blunt.<br />
<br />
You have absolutely no idea what I need.<br />
<br />
You certainly do not know me better than I do.<br />
<br />
I am fine as I am.<br />
<br />
If you need Jesus, that's great, you keep him.<br />
<br />
If you need saving, go and do it. With my blessings. I don't need saving. Stop telling me that I do.<br />
<br />
IT IS REALLY ANNOYING.<br />
<br />
No. You don't "know". It's your belief. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.<br />
<br />
No, please don't repeat yourself. I've heard it all.<br />
<br />
As I age, I become (I hope) increasingly compassionate/kind/tolerant. That's the plan, anyway.<br />
<br />
But I am, at the same time, increasingly tired of repetition. Some arguments I walk away from because I've done them so many times I just can't be bothered.<br />
<br />
This is one I am bored silly with, and yet it just won't go away. I don't think a week goes by that somebody, somewhere, tries to "save" me. And as soon as I say I don't need saving, they simply redouble their efforts.<br />
<br />
So let me be clear.<br />
<br />
I don't need saving. I am safe. Whatever it is you need saving from is something I don't believe in, so it holds no fears for me. And I cannot believe what you believe, because I don't believe it. There is no choice in the matter. Belief is not optional. If it were, it would be fraudulent.<br />
<br />
And I especially object to being proselytized by people who have fucked up their life, and then fixed it. I'm very happy that you found a way to do that. You needed your religion to achieve that goal. Fine. Carry on.<br />
<br />
I did not fuck up my life. I did not make those bad choices. I did not go off the rails. I'm sorry you did. Please don't try to make yourself feel better by assuming we were all as foolish as you, OK?<br />
<br />
And don't talk to me about morality. Mine is fine. It isn't the same as yours, but that's not my problem. If yours works for you - GREAT! Stick to it kid.<br />
<br />
And especially, if, without your version of religion, you are a bad person, please stick to it. If you need to go to church to be reminded regularly how to behave, GO. Go regularly. If need be, I'll get you there, FFS. We don't need you behaving badly. We have enough problems.<br />
<br />
Personally, I don't need that. I am capable of remembering to behave ALL BY MYSELF. Many of us are. We are sorry you have a problem there. We don't.<br />
<br />
Finally, do not tell me I'm going to hell. I will probably be flippant about it. I do not believe in hell. It's a very empty threat. But I'm more likely to say "fine, it sounds like fun". Because such a ridiculous idea deserves to be joked about. However, if we are going to be serious, can you seriously tell me that what has happened right here, in this life, on this planet, to innocent people, by sheer bad luck, or by the bad behaviour of other humans - war, tsunami, torture, disease, slavery, earthquake.......the suffering of millions, sometimes their whole lives, can be one-upped? Plenty of people have been through hell. When you can stop that happening, I'll be impressed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-9824782493135033562015-12-28T07:09:00.002-08:002015-12-28T07:23:30.242-08:00Holy Shitheads<br />
OK, the crazy holiday season is over and I have time to spare. I love this time of year. Too cold to play outside, but rather than whine and bitch I take the time to do indoor stuff and really enjoy it. This time of year I organize, clean, repair, paint, craft, and........write. Some nutbars write in November. I don't have time. I write in deep winter when there's not so much other stuff going on.<br />
<br />
And despite lots of material, I was well-behaved and didn't write anything "difficult" over Christmas. I didn't even share the meme about Isaac Newton's birthday. It's just an etiquette thing, I don't shit on people's parades.<br />
<br />
Not that I'm afraid to go there. I love a discussion on the topic of religion. Not everyone does, and for all sorts of different reasons. Some, because they just aren't interested, which is fair enough. Some don't think it's polite to discuss it. I think that's reasonable at a social gathering, but here, well, that's this medium is FOR. Some don't like their views being examined or opposed. This is where it gets quite interesting.<br />
<br />
There are those who are anti-religion in all forms, no exceptions, and they haven't got anything good to say about it. Obviously, if they take part in a discussion, it will change the tone. Those who object to their stance have several options, they can argue, they can ignore them, they can attempt to change their minds, or they can just respond.<br />
<br />
The same applies with the other extreme, the hardcore believers. It isn't necessary to accept what they say. There are just many ways to disagree.<br />
<br />
So, there's this whole idea about respect. I try to be respectful of people. Even if they have an opinion diametrically opposite to mine, I try to focus any opposition I have on that opinion, rather than aim negativity at the person sharing that opinion. Sometimes it is really difficult. And there comes a time that if an individual offers too many opinions opposite to mine, that there seems no point in talking to them. Where is that line drawn? Lots of variables there. I give more leeway to the young, and to those I consider to be compromised in some way. If you are an educated adult, let's say sometimes I remain courteous with effort.<br />
<br />
Because while my respect for a person is based on kindness, my respect for their opinions is based on what harm I consider could come of them. To be kind there is to enable harm. I won't do that.<br />
<br />
And so, there have been times when I've been called anti-religion - which is partly true, but not fully - and specifically I've been called anti-(insert religion here). That is not true. Take the Mormons for example. I consider the LDS belief system to be a sham. A bit of Christianity, a bit of Masonic stuff, and a lot of fantasy straight out of the head of Joseph Smith. He even confessed to his practices being fraudulent.<br />
<br />
So, the religion itself is mostly bollocks, but is it harmful? That is not a question that can be easily answered yes or no. Only the most anti of the anti religious would say yes. What has to be said is that some of the teachings of the church are good, and some are not. And some of the adherents are good people, and some are not. And it's not a contest. You can't say it's better or worse than any other belief system because you have to break it down bit by bit to compare.<br />
<br />
To me, all that matters is the behaviour of the followers. Their actual beliefs are irrelevant. If I see harm in any given belief, I'll say so. If I see harmful behaviour by any member of that belief system, I'll say so. And I won't always blame the one for the other, because sometimes it's causal, and sometimes it isn't.<br />
<br />
I think that people are shitheads, or they're not. And some are part shithead and part not. Or 24% one or the other, or whatever. And that is who they are, religion be damned. And there are shitheads in all religions, and there are shitheads with no religion.<br />
<br />
The difference, when it comes right down to it, is that religious shitheads have the idea that they are called by God to be shitheads. Superior shitheads, if you like. Holy shitheads.<br />
<br />
No, I'm not anti anything except anti harm. If I am "rude" about something to do with religion, it's <i>because</i> I see it as harmful. No harm? No problem.<br />
<br />
No, I don't think one religion is better than another. There are things <i>I personally prefer</i> in whatever religion. Which is not the same thing. I am liberal minded, so naturally I don't like conservative religious stuff. Duh.<br />
<br />
So, this week, and until I get bored with it, I'm open to, and encouraging, and probably starting religious discussions. The blogs will be here, the discussions will be at Facebook. If you read me here but don't have me on Facebook, ask nicely and I'll add you. I do NOT respond to emails or private messages on these topics. If you send me an interesting private comment I'll include it in my next blog (don't worry, I won't name you). If you send me any proselytizing messages, I'll just ignore them. We're here to learn from one another, not convert one another.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-15604050768257578132015-12-21T06:58:00.000-08:002015-12-21T08:36:15.646-08:00Have a Cool YuleToday is the solstice, the reason we have any kind of winter holiday, and apart from my choice of meal this evening, and some meditation, it will not really be marked in this house in any major way. There are two reasons for this.<br />
<br />
1. Good Pagans treat it as pretty much the most important day of the year, they have a ritual, they choose this day over Christmas to gather their family and celebrate, it is A Very Big Deal. I am not a good Pagan, I am the Pagan equivalent of the Muslim who drinks alcohol, or the Christian who only attends church for weddings and funerals. There was a time when I toyed with the idea of becoming Pagan clergy but I'm too lazy and selfish. And busy.<br />
<br />
2. I live in a secular society. Today is a working day. It's easier and more logical for me to celebrate at Christmas when everyone is off work. I see the modern Christmas as secular and generic, after all it is pronounced Krissmus, not Christ Mass and apart from the obviously Pagan history and associations thereof, for most people (including many Christians) it is not treated as a solemn religious event, but as something much broader and more inclusive.<br />
<br />
Now, there are all manner of ways to observe and celebrate Yule, but I've noticed an increasing amount of neo-traditions in the Pagan community, some with a Wiccan bent, some more Nordic, and some...well, I think it's just creative really. The point is, all of this is reconstructed because apart from noticing the actual solstice itself, nobody really knows what ancient ancestors did to mark the day. Maybe they just slept in.<br />
<br />
Certainly, an absolute wealth of symbolism and tradition grew from this basic need to recognize the turning point in the year, after which days get longer and we start looking forward to spring. In days of yore this was pretty much a matter of life and death. But unless you live in a very small percentage of the globe geographically, the weather doesn't actually fit in with the scheme. Here, we only have a small amount of snow, and the worst of the winter is still to come. In Australia, it's summer. At the equator they scratch their heads at the whole long/short day idea.<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting things I am seeing a lot of this year is the Sun Child. It's a sort of reverse situation to that of early Christians tolerating Pagan beliefs and including them, to make them more likely to convert. I like the symbolism, so don't get me wrong. I've always liked the Christian nativity story anyway. You don't have to believe in a myth to enjoy it. Some dramatizations have been beautifully done, with good acting, moving music, and so on. Who doesn't love a new baby anyway.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2jSaT36g7BX537X-_JMQM-BaEFaimmFCrj_yhUimIl7r-cKmdWn2pC_155pxeyPlRoE8qr8o9CdDTN07eqnvDLiKzX1-yNb01NusTiZvySFlGkZ0Cxc0d9mbktHOt2pYzxkWnfdodYf4j/s1600/sun+child.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg2jSaT36g7BX537X-_JMQM-BaEFaimmFCrj_yhUimIl7r-cKmdWn2pC_155pxeyPlRoE8qr8o9CdDTN07eqnvDLiKzX1-yNb01NusTiZvySFlGkZ0Cxc0d9mbktHOt2pYzxkWnfdodYf4j/s320/sun+child.jpg" width="228" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Or possibly the Sun child story came first, and the Christians borrowed it. Well, stole it, I suppose. From Mithras. Who knows. Christians object to that idea, but for those of us who are not troubled by it, the similarities are compelling.<br />
<br />
Mithraism developed from an Indian religion, and then swept through the Roman empire and thence northwards, into Scandinavia and the Celtic countries, and it picked up some middle-eastern bits along the way, because this is what religions do. They are sort of magnetic to local culture.<br />
<br />
None of this is breaking news, I might add. The Christian church was <i>always</i> aware of this "problem" and addressed it at first with the usual "the devil did it". Later they tried to prove that Christianity came first, and there are even allegations of Mithraic records being deliberately destroyed for that purpose. Who knows. But subsequently, plenty of pre-Christian evidence has been found by archaeologists not interested in religious arguments.<br />
<br />
Does it matter? Well, I daresay it matters to the more literalist Christians. While I actually know plenty of Christians who are not worried by it at all. They have always known that religions are syncretic, and that such details are not what it's all about.<br />
<br />
Some Pagans are seriously uptight about it too. I just leave them to it. As fascinating as this all is (when you are a history and mythology buff like me this stuff is positively drool-worthy) in the great scheme of things it's just a puzzle. As much as I love puzzles, they are not meaningful, they're just fun.<br />
<br />
The Pagan sun child is not real. It is a symbol. A rather obvious one. Depicting an actual child is not harmful, it is an artistic expression. On the other hand if somebody out there wants to believe in an actual child as historical fact or spiritual entity, there's no harm in that either. These are fully harmless beliefs, and especially nice for children. Seeing the sun "return" as a new baby, and the tired, waning sun end as an old man is nice and easy to get your head round. That's why we have symbolism. And without symbolism there'd be no art, no music, no poetry, no literature.<br />
<br />
If course there is danger in any mythology if it's taken literally and used to hate and oppress, but I find the winter holidays the most harmless, the most symbolism filled, the most natural, and therefore the most joyful. It makes me even more than usual open to sharing and toleration. Joy to the world. Peace on Earth and goodwill to all men.<br />
<br />
Share gifts, eat, drink, be merry, but most of all show someone love. Love is what it's all about. It's THE most important thing, and everything else is just stuff. Celebrate any way you wish, and try to remember those who don't have anyone else. If you have a lonely neighbour, bring 'em in. If you have some spare cash, or spare time, there are people who would appreciate it.<br />
<br />
Be nice to one another, and if, in any size, shape, or form any belief system asks you to be anything other than kind and loving to all, ignore it. It's rubbish.<br />
<br />
Welcome back sun.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-79995382921164396232015-11-27T06:56:00.002-08:002015-11-27T06:56:57.834-08:00SacrificeSomething a bit different today.<br />
<br />
I shared a meme on Facebook.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWHQgvtw2HLAs-_Hc3SMlUVIal3UYPOStQ0FG9rBIdxB4pK8s14bQ80FuWyvOQ6Vf72EYsH17muses61ErEBBgoRvfMqpSRsHhjrM7HPWq47k5EAiPWqKMFj_2-i_kr9pmnbL4ZDDRIImw/s1600/abe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjWHQgvtw2HLAs-_Hc3SMlUVIal3UYPOStQ0FG9rBIdxB4pK8s14bQ80FuWyvOQ6Vf72EYsH17muses61ErEBBgoRvfMqpSRsHhjrM7HPWq47k5EAiPWqKMFj_2-i_kr9pmnbL4ZDDRIImw/s320/abe.jpg" width="248" /></a></div>
<br />
First of all, why did I share it? Well, this one has always bothered me. I've had it explained to me many times, by very well-intentioned people, and last night was no different. The Christian friend who explained it went for the standard, orthodox explanation. The whole test of faith thing. OK.<br />
<br />
There are two ways to look at this, and we'll do both of them.<br />
<br />
The first way is to treat the story at face value, as a literalist Christian would, and examine the motives of God. Assuming the God in this story is the same God that people today pray to etc, and assuming there's only one, which is a big assumption in itself, but necessary for our purposes, then he had some reason to test Abraham in this way. One man. Just a man. To say he was putting a lot of responsibility on Abe's shoulders is a considerable understatement. He then had to make sure the guy was obedient. I get that. If you are planning on choosing one human being out of the entire human race and making him the patriarch of not only your chosen people but of religions and adherents yet to come, you have to make sure he's up to the task. He has to do what you tell him. And there can be no greater test than this. Additionally, many believers insist that the child was never actually at any risk, because God didn't actually let Abraham kill him.<br />
<br />
The sacrifice went ahead, incidentally. If you are not familiar with the story, Abraham sacrificed a sheep instead. This goes right along with the modern view that we must take into account standard cultural practises of the time, such as child and animal sacrifice.<br />
<br />
It gets more complex after that, because the Christians connect this to the sacrifice of God's son Jesus, while the Jews have several ideas on this but a big one is that Abraham knew the child was in no danger, while some say that it was his own idea to use his child, and not God's. This is the sort of thing believers love to argue about, and we'll leave them to it.<br />
<br />
The other way to look at this, from a non-believer perspective is that what we have here is an interesting myth, packed full of symbolism. Remember, the Jews created stories to cement their place. It's all about belonging to that piece of land. They had a very tenuous grip on it at times, and in addition the people, the masses, weren't always all that interested in staying. It was their leaders, just like all leaders everywhere, who had to persuade them to conform, and these were the people who wrote the stories. We no longer live in the age of myth, but the same thing still happens, only we call it propaganda.<br />
<br />
When I refer to this story as myth, believers are often offended. They refer to other people's ancient stories as myth, but they believe theirs to be different, special, true. This is where we tend to argue, and it's a pity because there is so much value to myth.<br />
<br />
One of the things that happens in myth is that a group of people become one person. Several heroes, who each did maybe one memorable thing, get conflated into one legendary figure whose story gets passed down. Or, as in the case of Abraham, just people. The figure of Abraham represents the tribe. It is very unlikely there ever was a man by that name, with that role, who did any of these things. Maybe he's based on one or more leaders over time, who were memorable. Maybe he wrote stories. The point is, this event didn't actually happen. It's quite possible it happened in somebody's conscience. Maybe more than once. At 2am on a hot desert night, a man with a lot of responsibility could easily think to himself, what if? And a story begins. We have never lived in such circumstances and cannot judge.<br />
<br />
These were not stupid people. They were unsophisticated, but the quality and genius of their stories tells you they were deep thinkers. They had a need for these stories, and they honed them carefully before they were written down.<br />
<br />
Therefore, <i>the meaning of the story - its purpose - was known to its writer (s). </i>But since then, different opinions, and being out of touch with the lives of the writers and those who they wrote it for, leads us to guess at their motives.<br />
<br />
The test of faith theory, in one form or another is the most logical one. Unfortunately, whether you see it as a true story OR an important myth, it leaves several questions unanswered.<br />
<br />
The first one is that an omniscient God ought to have known BEFORE choosing Abraham whether he was the man for the job or not. It's not as if there was a line of candidates. This test should have been completely redundant. Any test of faith should be, if God knows everything. As usual, as with so many Bible stories, it suggests a God who can be fooled. Who isn't quite sure.<br />
<br />
And why didn't God save the sheep too? Or at least scold Abraham for sacrificing it. It was totally unnecessary to kill the animal.<br />
<br />
Let's now look at the circumcision. The modern view here quite often is that this practise was to do with hygiene, but it's probably a blood sacrifice ritual from earlier times. It certainly existed in Ancient Egypt and lots of African tribes have traditionally used it as a rite of passage into manhood.<br />
<br />
It's not unusual for a concept (in this case sacrifice) to be repeated in several different ways in ancient stories. That was how things were taught. If you didn't "get" the idea one way, you got it another way. Creation myths are a good example of this. The story of Noah, which comes long after the early stories, is in fact another creation myth. Why are there two? Because none of these early stories were original. They were borrowed from earlier civilizations and altered to suit. Noah comes straight from Gilgamesh, with details changed. All of this is lost when the stories are read literally.<br />
<br />
The concept of sacrifice is found throughout ancient stories, just about everywhere. It comes from pre-history, from superstition, and it hasn't gone anywhere. Animals are still sacrificed today by some Greek Orthodox priests, and it's a widespread practise in Africa and Asia. So we shouldn't be at all surprised that it was a big deal in stories written almost 3000 years ago.<br />
<br />
Yesterday was American Thanksgiving. A ritual turkey sacrifice. Don't laugh. The turkey was killed, the ritual was done, you'd better believe it is NOT a million miles removed. That's humans. We still like rituals. No, we love them. We are all about meaning and symbolism. Of course we are, we don't change much in a few thousand years. Some of us take it more seriously than others, and some.....some think God requires it.<br />
<br />
Why? What possible use could God have for humans performing rituals?<br />
<br />
When the meme said that this story is crazy. it was looking at it from the perspective of modern behaviour. If somebody today claimed to hear voices, we'd assume they had a mental illness. People who cut off parts of their body are considered at the very least to be a bit odd. And someone who said they were going to kill their child "for God" would have child services round so fast it'd be a blur. So, yeah, it was crazy. We allow it because it's an ancient story, and because generally today even believers have no intention of copying it. Well, hopefully.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, these stories are still told. Reasons are debated. Excuses are made. Apologists smirk. Non-believers smirk back.<br />
<br />
The real test here seems to be one of credulity. I wonder what God would have done if Abraham had said "Not bloody likely! That's my son! He's precious!" That's a man I'd admire. I like to think that would be the outcome God would be pleased with. But then I never did like the Old Testament God. He killed a lot of children.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-83213417641812074722015-11-20T07:38:00.001-08:002015-12-15T05:29:01.855-08:00Calm DownIt's been a week since the attack in Paris, and the #1 topic in my online circles, and at my dining table too, is still the response to terrorism. It is uppermost in everyone's minds, because obviously you can't just pretend it isn't happening, but moreover, the sane people are having to invest a lot of time and effort into calming down those who think the sky is falling. Everybody has friends and relatives who are so worried about terrorists that they are saying silly things. Really, the big deal for us ordinary mortals is not so much "how to deal with terrorists", that's not our problem. We have the associated problem of "how to deal with people who are irrationally afraid of terrorists".<br />
<br />
Yes, I said irrationally. Living outside of the middle east, the risk of being killed by a terrorist is so small it's not even worth worrying about. That's the reality of the situation. Every day all of us do things that risk our lives. Statistically you are more likely to choke on your lunch than be killed by a terrorist. That is a mathematical fact. I could list hundreds more examples. Even if you live in a major city, where most terrorist attacks occur, you would really have to draw the short straw to be in that "wrong place, wrong time" situation. The risk is so small that your fears are actually ridiculous.<br />
<br />
But humans are strange. Our fears are frequently not logical. And people who are already living in fear for other reasons will latch onto more fear, because that's how minds work. They become overwhelmed and it's easy for more fear to creep in. This is not helped by those who deliberately spread fear, and use it as a tool for their own gains.<br />
<br />
I'll tell you what I fear, right now, and that is fascism. Fascism is a response to fear, but also an excuse to spread fear. It's a bit of a chicken and egg at this point, because it's a spiral down. Even so, you only buy into fascism if you are very fearful. The protection against it is that age old mixture of logic and compassion - wisdom. Fascists are never wise. They are often cunning, not actually stupid, but they are never wise.<br />
<br />
If you are afraid, right now, it's OK to admit it. It's OK to say "it feels like the world is on the brink of something, and it scares me". In many ways, it should. There is potential, right now, for great things or terrible things.<br />
<br />
This has happened before. We get past it. We will again. But that's no comfort if you are right in the middle of it.<br />
<br />
So how to deal with it?<br />
<br />
I suggest, first of all, that you make a decision, and you commit to an ethical approach to all that you say and do. If that sounds like I'm stating the obvious, it has clearly been missed by many. Teach by example. Stay calm when you discuss things. Don't call people names just because they don't agree with you, even if they call you names. The ad hominem derails a conversation, but you can get it right back on track by ignoring it and not retaliating. Take the high road, and stay on topic. When you read or hear words that are harsh or cruel, and there is a tone of anger, recognise this as fear. A barking dog, no more and no less.<br />
<br />
Don't be arrogant. Perhaps you know far more about the history and the politics behind the issue than the person raving at you. Don't talk down to them because of that. Accept that <i>they are at a disadvantage</i>, and that ignorance leads to fear. They will not listen to you if you take on a superior air. They'll simply tune you out. Education is the key, but it has to be offered in such a way that the listener doesn't feel belittled by your presentation.<br />
<br />
Don't hate the haters. If you need to avoid them, do so. If their hatred is so great that it feels like a poison, then distance yourself from them, by all means. But don't hate them.<br />
<br />
Don't even hate the terrorists. Yes, I'm perfectly serious. These are damaged people. You do not become a terrorist having had a happy life. Something has happened in the minds of these people that has driven them over the edge. It is impossible for most of us to understand. But there's something else. The vast majority of members of DAESH (the organisation that wants to be called The Islamic State) and other organisations such as Boko Haram, etc., have been <i>born and raised without ever knowing love and peace</i>. Think about that. Think how bloody awful that must be.<br />
<br />
It doesn't excuse it, and I do not forgive them. But it has messed with their heads, and it has turned them into the perfect soldier. Nothing to lose.<br />
<br />
Pity them, because our lives are absolute bliss by comparison. These are the dogs that the pounds put down, because they can never be rehabilitated. You can't negotiate with them, you can't reason with them.<br />
<br />
But you can reason with those who are afraid of them. It isn't easy, but it's not impossible. And we must. We cannot let those who live in fear be sucked in by those who would take advantage of their fears, such as Donald Trump or Paul Golding. They don't see that the danger of fascism far exceeds the danger of terrorism, and we aren't going to teach them with anger and hate.<br />
<br />
There are plenty who would sneer at any suggestion that we cannot defeat extremism with love and peace, but actually it is the only thing that defeats it. It doesn't mean "hug a terrorist" (although I'm willing to give it a try) - it means spreading the love and peace among the masses, the ordinary people, to counter the fear, and to send a message to our governments that we want them to proceed with caution. Above all, teach your children well.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilx43dlAWiidVay3hh2tFX3AyTqJWf4qW_xHnAeMZiFnCBxpL5NWwyzgk6ZvwmOzA7kleGqCuwtu7CtqBYtqWTnJkvvHuB1j6teSted7aOMnEBpoDf9cg2dk9HCPM3FpL_z7ybghvjF8vd/s1600/peace_and_love.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilx43dlAWiidVay3hh2tFX3AyTqJWf4qW_xHnAeMZiFnCBxpL5NWwyzgk6ZvwmOzA7kleGqCuwtu7CtqBYtqWTnJkvvHuB1j6teSted7aOMnEBpoDf9cg2dk9HCPM3FpL_z7ybghvjF8vd/s320/peace_and_love.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-27381034478990568302015-11-15T06:27:00.000-08:002015-11-15T06:32:28.820-08:00Today, everybody is an armchair expert on international relations. I'm just one more. I'm no expert either, but I can vent forth with the rest. I do it here to avoid getting into fruitless arguments in social media, because I've seen feelings running very high. I prefer to keep calm and analyse. Because a lot of people are talking bollocks.<br />
<br />
The argument du jour is that Paris is just one place that has been hit by ISIS, far from the worst, and is getting too much publicity, and everyone is forgetting about the rest. Well, some may be, I can't help them. There will always be those who live under a rock. But for most people, it is not a question of Paris being more important, but of the shock factor when the target is outside of the "trouble zones". If it had been Sydney, or Buenos Aires, or Oslo, or Tokyo, the reaction would have been the same. We don't expect it to happen in those places. We are used to seeing atrocities in the middle east and in Africa. It doesn't mean we don't care, it's just less of a shock.<br />
<br />
Like it not, nobody, absolutely nobody, reacts viscerally to every news story of a mass killing, or even a natural disaster. Every single one of the people who are <i>suddenly</i> interested in the "whole world and not just Paris" have ignored deaths on a greater scale, somewhere else, recently, because nobody, not even dedicated journalists or activists with a human rights bias, have the time or the energy to respond to everything that happens in the world. There is a lot of it.<br />
<br />
We react first and foremost to things close to home. Or places that feel like home. For me, personally, this was a "big deal" because I know Paris well. I love it very much. It feels like something that was "mine" that was harmed. For other people, even those who've never been there, it represents something special. It has a distinctive history of the people taking charge, and keeping it that way. It has a culture many are deeply fond of, even at a distance. In a way it seems familiar, even to Americans who've only seen it in the movies. It's not wrong to be upset about an iconic city. It's also not wrong to care about people even if their government may not have had a "clean" record in policy. I'll come back to that in a moment.<br />
<br />
But the fact is that it's been proven time and again that we care more about things that look us right in the face. Charities know they'll get more money showing us ONE starving child, than if they tell us that 20,000 children are starving to death daily (they are by the way, are you "we love the whole world, not just Paris" people doing anything about that?). We react to visuals. To names. To personal accounts.<br />
<br />
Just a few months ago nobody knew about the refugees from Syria. So nobody cared. Then we started seeing photos comparing the before and after of the effects of the bombings there.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ6JF4gH88BtGLguWfPlIgiToQyiaF2T84NeHat9RGebDkERZVVVAnGWT7YFVvK6gDgm67A52UJDMz8e31Ty9a3akw1nZbhCCv6r7XQCqB_byrpBbDv_mw9HlaGTJ65yMXAfUET0zq0nf4/s1600/syria.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZ6JF4gH88BtGLguWfPlIgiToQyiaF2T84NeHat9RGebDkERZVVVAnGWT7YFVvK6gDgm67A52UJDMz8e31Ty9a3akw1nZbhCCv6r7XQCqB_byrpBbDv_mw9HlaGTJ65yMXAfUET0zq0nf4/s320/syria.jpg" width="266" /></a></div>
<br />
.....and then we sat up and took notice. But some still want to send them back there!<br />
<br />
No, it's sad, and it's wrong, but we become accustomed to news of tragedy and death. We scroll past it. It's just another one. Or another 5,000. We know, and we move on.<br />
<br />
But there's actually a benefit here. Eventually something gets our attention. It becomes symbolic. It becomes a turning point that finally makes people think, and talk, and act. We have to hope they act well, because by the nonsense I keep hearing (more bombs! more bombs!) I don't think some of them have <b>got it</b> yet.<br />
<br />
On a side note, this reminds me of other issues where a focus is criticized. Black Lives Matter is criticized for its focus on black people. "All lives matter", they cry. Yes, we know, but these are the ones who, right now, need more attention, because it often appears that they are treated as expendable. Feminism is criticized for its focus on women. "What about men?" they cry. Yes, men matter too, but women are the ones who, still today, are treated as second class. To reach equality we need to boost the status of women UP to that of men. Sometimes you have to focus on one area to get awareness, and you choose those who are suffering NOW. For example, all dogs deserve love and fair treatment, but right now we have to focus on the rights of Pit Bulls and similar dogs, because they are the ones being euthanized for no reason. "All dogs matter" isn't what helps the Pit Bulls. A focus on them is what is needed.<br />
<br />
I'm going to borrow an analogy I read on this topic, because it's a damn good one. If you break your arm and take it to the ER, you expect the doctor to focus on your arm. If he X-Rayed your whole body, and put a cast on all your limbs, you'd ask him why. And if he said "all bones matter" you'd demand that he paid attention to the broken arm, never mind the rest right now. "But what if you break your leg next week?" Well, you'd deal with that then.<br />
<br />
And to further this analogy, there are lots of other people with broken arms not being attended to by that doctor. Their broken arms matter too, but they have not presented themselves to him. It's not that he doesn't care about them.<br />
<br />
Now, it has been said that the west is responsible for the rise of ISIS, and in inflaming tension in the middle east in general. Those with longer memories, or an interest in history have also noted that the instability in the middle east has long been affected by the actions of Europe and the US, and that ultimately you reap what you sow.<br />
<br />
Obviously, there is much truth in this. Either directly or indirectly, outsiders have damaged not just the middle east itself but also Africa, and central Asia by self-serving policies, for hundreds of years. Colonialism was never a charity mission. We cannot expect that to be just forgotten, forgiven, and for everyone affected to just get over it. The damage is done, and it's extreme.<br />
<br />
At the same time, we aren't going to make things better by making things worse, so, for example, insisting that French foreign policy is evil and it serves them right, is not a way forward. It's not a solution. It's just not helpful. Learn from mistakes, yes, most definitely. Then work towards a better future.<br />
<br />
We are also not going to solve anything by blaming and persecuting innocent Muslims, which is the vast majority. Not only is it unethical, it's illogical. When something is both of those then it's simply wrong, and that's all that needs to be said on that topic, because I just can't waste my time on such nonsense. I have zero tolerance for that level of stupidity.<br />
<br />
Of course a lot of knee-jerk reactions are caused by fear and ignorance. Perhaps we have to be a little patient with friends and family who are saying things we don't agree with. We solve nothing by fighting among ourselves over something none of us have any control over.<br />
<br />
I'll leave you with this article, as it's one of the better ones I've read recently. There are plenty of others, and it does help us understand it a bit. But at the end of the day we have to accept that we don't and can't really understand this phenomenon. I sincerely hope that those who are working to overcome the poison that is ISIS know what they're doing, and I wish them well, because I wouldn't want their job for anything. Meanwhile if you are really so clever that you have a solution, do let them know, I'm sure they'd be pleased to hear from you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b><i><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980">http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980</a></i></b><br />
<b><i><br /></i></b>Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-36469134806826417262015-11-13T06:55:00.003-08:002015-11-13T06:55:51.562-08:00IntoleranceHere's a thought for you today. What makes people intolerant?<br />
<br />
Perhaps we need to define what that means, first of all. Here's the dictionary definition.<br />
<br />
<div class="vk_ans" style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif-light, sans-serif; font-size: xx-large !important; font-weight: lighter !important; margin-bottom: 0px;">
<span data-dobid="hdw">in·tol·er·ant</span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: small;">
<div class="lr_dct_ent_ph" style="font-size: large;">
<span class="lr_dct_ph">ˌinˈtäl(ə)rənt/</span></div>
<div>
<div class="lr_dct_sf_h" style="padding-top: 10px;">
<i>adjective</i></div>
<div aria-hidden="true" class="xpdxpnd vk_gy" data-mh="-1" style="color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important; max-height: 0px; overflow: hidden; transition: max-height 0.3s;">
<b></b></div>
<ol class="lr_dct_sf_sens" style="border: 0px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 20px;">
<li style="border: 0px; line-height: 1.2; list-style: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="lr_dct_sf_sen vk_txt" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif-light, sans-serif; font-weight: lighter !important; padding-top: 10px;">
<div style="margin-left: 20px;">
<div class="_Jig" style="margin-left: -20px;">
<div data-dobid="dfn" style="display: inline;">
not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.</div>
<div class="vk_gy" style="color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important;">
"he was <b>intolerant of</b> ignorance"</div>
<div>
<table class="vk_tbl vk_gy" style="border-collapse: collapse; color: rgb(135, 135, 135) !important;"><tbody>
<tr><td class="lr_dct_nyms_ttl" style="font-style: italic; padding: 0px 3px 0px 0px; vertical-align: top; white-space: nowrap;">synonyms:</td><td style="padding: 0px;"><a data-ved="0CB0Q_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" href="https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2&biw=1920&bih=940&q=define+bigoted&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">bigoted</a>, <a data-ved="0CB4Q_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" href="https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2&biw=1920&bih=940&q=define+narrow-minded&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">narrow-minded</a>, <a data-ved="0CB8Q_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" href="https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2&biw=1920&bih=940&q=define+small-minded&sa=X&ved=0CB8Q_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">small-minded</a>, <a data-ved="0CCAQ_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" href="https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2&biw=1920&bih=940&q=define+parochial&sa=X&ved=0CCAQ_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">parochial</a>, <a data-ved="0CCEQ_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" href="https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2&biw=1920&bih=940&q=define+provincial&sa=X&ved=0CCEQ_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">provincial</a>, <a data-ved="0CCIQ_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" href="https://www.google.ca/search?espv=2&biw=1920&bih=940&q=define+illiberal&sa=X&ved=0CCIQ_SowAGoVChMI45v7vr6NyQIVQx8eCh1Vygn1" style="color: #660099; cursor: pointer; text-decoration: none;">illiberal</a>;</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</li>
</ol>
</div>
</div>
<br />
It's important to remember that there is an unwritten meaning here too, that what a person is intolerant of is disputable. All of us are intolerant of things that are obviously wrong/bad/harmful, for example genocide. The only people who tolerate it are those who would do it. There are no absolutes in ethics, but there are plenty of examples of wrongs that the vast majority of people would never accept. So, while the vast majority of people are intolerant of them, we don't classify this as intolerance.<br />
<br />
This gives us a clue. Intolerance seems to be based on perceived harm. Makes sense. Why would anyone tolerate something harmful? It would be foolish, crazy even to tolerate something we know will hurt us. But when we talk about intolerance as an issue, as seen clearly from the dictionary (and remember, dictionaries reflect common usage) we are talking about a perception of harm that isn't obvious, or that others simply don't see at all. In fact, it could well be imaginary.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, that perception must be there. There has to be some motivation behind it. I think we all instinctively understand that this is what is going on, and we have done so for a long time. I have read a lot of 19th century literature, and there are plenty of examples of people being asked "but where's the harm in it?" when they object to something. It is a pretty standard response to any criticism - "it doesn't hurt you." In other words, you are being told to get over yourself.<br />
<br />
I wonder how many people are that easily shaken out of it. Would it make a difference if it were a very silly, petty intolerance? Would that be easier or harder to rationalize?<br />
<br />
I posted a test here a few days ago that examined implicit bias. Recently, research has been done with tests just like this that seems to show that racism is pretty much endemic in white people. Not surprisingly there are plenty of people who object to that idea. It's really not a very pleasant thing to accept. How much of this translates into actual intolerance is quite another matter. People who don't believe they are racist, or who are trying their very best not to be, may well be avoiding displays or acts of intolerance, so it is possible to suffer from implicit bias without it having any real effect.<br />
<br />
It is even possible for a person to be openly racist in their words, while not in their deeds. Much of human society gets by in this way, we are basically pretty decent to one another, despite the horrible things we say.<br />
<br />
And this applies to all areas where intolerance occurs.<br />
<br />
As usual, I choose to use a silly example to demonstrate what I mean, because if I choose a real one, too much focus is placed on it. I want my example to be placeholder for all types of intolerance, not just one. Therefore I shall talk about the problem of hatism. Hat prejudice.<br />
<br />
In the fictitious town of Examplis there is a problem with hatists. They are insisting that the new trend of wearing a green hat is a problem, because in their day everyone wore blue hats. Needless to say, the people who wear green hats are insisting on their right to do so, and saying there's no harm in it. The hatists know that they can't actually go around stealing people's green hats, and in any case that would only solve half the problem - they have no way of forcing people to wear blue hats.<br />
<br />
So the hatists do the only thing they can do. They attack the green hat wearers every chance they get. They tell cruel jokes about them. They slander them. They don't employ them, or if they do they don't promote them, and they pay them less. They won't let them into their clubs. They won't rent to them. Hatists in the police force do random stop searches of people in green hats, and pull them over when driving for no reason.<br />
<br />
Green hat wearers, along with other people who preach tolerance, become activists. They pass laws to prevent actual oppression of green hat wearers, and they make criticism of them politically incorrect. The hatists can no longer openly speak their hatism, but they don't actually change their belief that green hats are lesser, and therefore wrong.<br />
<br />
What's missing from all of this? Communication. Freedom for Green Hats activists decide that they won't make the same mistake that intolerant people make. They must discuss it and try to find out what's behind it. Why do the blue hat wearers hate the green hats so much? But as soon as they show they are willing to listen, a group of the Blue Hat and Proud Of It people, complain about being persecuted. They claim people are being intolerant of their intolerance.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, an interview goes ahead and the blue hat wearer who represents them, says it's all a matter of a slippery slope. If you let people wear green hats, what next? No hats at all? Or perhaps people will wear penguins on their heads, or model tractors, or cheese sandwiches. When the interviewer suggests that perhaps even this would do no actual harm, the blue hat wearer started to yibble and rant about the downfall of society, then accuse the green hat wearers of trying to take over.<br />
<br />
Silly. It sounds silly because it is silly. But can you smell the fear? It's all about fear. Fear of "other". Fear of change. Absurd fears of everything falling to pieces. Fear, in fact, of the End Of Civilization As We Know It.<br />
<br />
That, I truly believe, is what lurks behind intolerance. There has to be something, and intolerance simply can't stand on its own. It must be motivated by fear. It's why media bias deliberately and systematically tries to create fear.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/lAz-F1QnyCk/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lAz-F1QnyCk?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
<br />
It's why threats work, especially vague ones. It's why propaganda is so incredibly powerful.<br />
<br />
When an animal is frightened it attacks. Humans do too, but are often more subtle about it. Intolerance is a type of fear-based attack. It is a sneaky, back-door attack. It is, in fact, the action of a coward.<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-24433520044805844302015-11-11T08:10:00.000-08:002015-11-11T08:44:36.226-08:00Pondering The Negative Side of NormalPeople fascinate me - because they're so weird - and that's why I love them so much. One of the key things that fascinates me is why people like what they like. Usually they don't know. Sometimes they think they like things (or pretend to?) because they are mainstream popular. That's a weird reason to like something, but people are often uncomfortable if they don't conform. I find that a bit sad. It's one thing if you are obliged to conform (office dress code) but to do it just to feel like you fit into society, well, that's a shame.<br />
<br />
I like men in eyeliner. I really do. It probably doesn't suit everyone, but those who wear it seem to rock it. When I was discussing this with someone, she said "it makes them look like cats". I said "I like cats". So here's a question. Do I like men in eyeliner because they look like cats, or do I like cats because they look like they are wearing eyeliner? Or....as is probably far more likely...is it nothing to do with that at all, just "one of those things"? I'm also drawn to artwork with black lines in it, and I like Celtic knotwork and stained glass. Is there a pattern, or is it....just one of those things?<br />
<br />
But there's another reason I like men in eyeliner, that's not an aesthetic matter. I like the rebellion factor. I like the way it draws out the homophobes, and I particularly like the way it makes beige people uncomfortable. I really enjoy making beige people uncomfortable.<br />
<br />
If you don't know what I mean by beige people, you've obviously never listened to Billy Connolly, but it's an easy concept to wrap your noddle around. Beige people are the opposite of colourful people. Beige people never dare. They never do anything outside what they think of as safe and normal. This often leads them to use a lot of beige (or other neutral tones) in their wardrobe and decorating, because it's "safe". They enjoy bland. They are happy with dull. They PREFER boring. But it's not just their colour schemes that are beige. It's their food, their conversation, their musical tastes. Everything they do is unadventurous.<br />
<br />
They are, mostly, harmless, so why do I like making them uncomfortable? Because they make me uncomfortable. Fair's fair, etc. They think I'm weird, and I think they are. We don't get along.<br />
<br />
I would not hurt them. But I do like making them uncomfortable. I like forcing them to face things that they find too adventurous. You can think of it as mischief if you like, I feel that it's educational. Here's your "outside the box" moment of the day.<br />
<br />
There are less beige people than there used to be. When I was a child there were far more. Especially older people. You could line up 20 older people at random and they'd all look roughly the same. Every so often there'd be one that stood out, and people would mock. They'd call them eccentric or worse. Those were the people I liked best. They were more fun, more interesting, more watchable.<br />
<br />
On TV there were entertainers who were "over the top" but it was all forced. It was a show, an act. Take away the costume and the script and they were just beige too. Then there were a few who stood out, true colourful characters. I'm not sure at which point I decided I would never be beige, but it was quite young. So I didn't ever get into the habit of conformity. It never made any sense.<br />
<br />
There were many advantages to this. Mistakes I didn't make from just trying to go along with the crowd. Never smoked, never did drugs. Didn't hang out in dangerous places with bad people. Those who did thought they were rebelling, of course. They thought they were being daring. I thought they were being fooled.<br />
<br />
I just did my own thing, so you can imagine everyone's shock when I married young. In white even. IN A CHURCH. But you see, the advantage of not giving a damn what others think, is that everything is open to you. There is no need to behave in a wild way just to keep up an image. Doing things to keep up an image isn't authentic. It's just another type of conformity.<br />
<br />
But the funniest part of doing your own thing is that the exact same thing can look like conformity or rebellion depending on perception. For example, I had 6 children. Some people saw this as terribly old-fashioned and traditional (which it it was once), while others saw this as quite radical (which it is these days). I saw it as just what happened, it wasn't a plan I had. Just how life worked out. But people "read" things that aren't there.<br />
<br />
So, now, with all those years of doing things my way, and the person I am now as a result, I'm often seen as complex and interesting. Which I can assure you I'm not. I am quite possibly the least complex person you'll ever meet. I don't have any hidden depths. When you meet me you get to know me very fast, and there are no surprises afterwards. I wear my heart on my sleeve...look, I even write stuff like this.<br />
<br />
And I keep running into people who are afraid to be themselves. Oh gosh, there are lots of reasons why, and some of them even make sense. But mostly I think our culture is just weird. People think it's normal, because it's familiar, but that's all it is. Habit. Comes from just doing things without thinking. Living on auto-pilot.<br />
<br />
People do this because it saves effort. It's too much work to consider things, to compare, to rationalize, and above all to question.<br />
<br />
So that's where I come in. Well, not just me. People like me. People who question a lot and find that habit is often very silly. We mess with their heads by forcing them to think, and they retaliate by calling us eccentrics or worse. Then we really confuse them by not caring about the insults.<br />
<br />
Our culture is absurd.<br />
<br />
Did you know that the correct answer to the old greeting "How Do You Do" was actually "How Do You Do". A greeting that is a question, for which the correct thing to do is not reply, but to ask the same question, which no reply is expected for.<br />
<br />
This is completely and utterly ridiculous. At least (sometimes) these days we actually answer the question. But usually not truthfully. Usually when we answer any enquiry into our well being we say "Fine!" even when we are sick, exhausted, stressed, or simply having a shitty day. It's one of the quirks of etiquette that it's correct to ask how you are, but incorrect to burden others with your troubles. I have had several doctors in my life who would greet patients with "How are you today?" I think they forgot why people had come to see them. And yet I found myself saying "Oh fine thank you" and THEN explaining why I had just told a great big lie. I much prefer doctors who greet you with "And what is the problem today?" or similar. It makes so much more sense.<br />
<br />
And I've told this story a million times but it's worth repeating while on this topic. I am English and I don't drink tea.<br />
<br />
Before we go any further, let's consider what etiquette is. It's a pattern of habits designed to make things easier for everyone. In this way it's a very good thing. It's about hospitality and even actual kindness. The motivation is impossible to criticize. Somehow along the way, some people misunderstood it, and some aspects of it subsequently conflicted. You see, one of the central aspects of etiquette is to pretend you don't notice when somebody breaks the rules. It's all very complicated really, but it boils down to being nice. And it's assumed you've been learning this since infancy, so you should have got it by now.<br />
<br />
Nevertheless, I had so many experiences of there being a problem over tea, that it formed a large part of who I am. I'm quite serious about this. Being a non-tea drinker in England helped create my personality.<br />
<br />
Of course, if I had been the conforming type to begin with, I'd have swallowed the stuff regardless and probably got used to it. I daresay there are many people out there who have done this. There would have been parents who insisted they drink it, and so on.<br />
<br />
But as it was, I was not the conforming type. I wasn't being difficult. All I ever requested as an alternative was plain water. And if that caused any inconvenience at all I would just go thirsty. Plenty of time I DID, because it was, apparently, too much trouble.<br />
<br />
The routine would go like this. I would arrive somewhere, with my mother or grandparents when I was very young, and later on independently, and would be offered tea. That was the standard etiquette. A visitor was offered tea. Not "would you like a drink"? No. Just the offer of tea. I would then say "no, thank you", as politely as I could. This was almost always followed by, at the very least, "are you sure?" and I would say I was quite sure. But at least half the time, it was questioned. Because it was not normal to decline. It was normal to accept. Even if you weren't thirsty. Even if you hated tea. It was a ritual, not a REAL act of hospitality. That would involve actually finding out what your visitor needed, which may be something you weren't willing to give......<br />
<br />
Back in the 60s, wherever you went, most people smoked. They never thought twice about it. Everywhere smelled of it, and sometimes it was overwhelming. Visiting my paternal grandfather I could have really have done with a gas mask or perhaps even an aqualung. For many places I went, if there had been such a thing as true hospitality towards visitors, and I'd been asked if I needed anything, the answer would have been "fresh air please". Of course, that would never have happened, it would have been "rude". Apparently choking your visitors wasn't rude. But that's how it was then. Children were expected to just tolerate it. No wonder my generation, now in power, has created so many laws to prevent that.<br />
<br />
Then there was the temperature. As you arrived they would offer to take your coat for you. Had I said "no thanks, it's freezing in here, I'll keep it on" that would have been "rude". But it was perfectly OK to freeze your guests. It was also OK to let your poodle hump them, make them sit on furniture covered in dog hair, let your obnoxious nephew make airplane noises the entire time, or insist they watch your tedious holiday slides. This was all OK.<br />
<br />
But you had to offer them tea.<br />
<br />
The child who refused tea was often considered a bad child. I was not a bad child. Don't assume that because I was not a conforming child that I was a bad child. I was not "high-spirited". I did not touch what wasn't mine. I did not run about and knock things over. I did not interrupt adults who were talking. I spoke, politely, when spoken to. I had good table manners. I even ate all my vegetables. Nobody could call me a bad child. I was easily amused with a very small amount of toys, or a colouring book. If there were a few small cars to play with you wouldn't know I was there. If there was a garden to play in you wouldn't see me at all for the entire visit.<br />
<br />
All I ever did to upset people was refuse tea.<br />
<br />
And it did upset them. It threw them for a loop. Their whole routine had to change. They had to stop and think. Some people managed to find the cold water tap, but then didn't have a suitable glass to put it in. I was often given water in a teacup or a sherry glass. Once, the only thing that could be found was a cut lead crystal whisky glass, and my host watched me with hand outstretched at every sip lest I drop it.<br />
<br />
Some people were more used to children, and would have orange squash available. If you've never experienced orange squash just think yourself lucky. It's a colonial thing, British, Indian, and Australian, what. I imagine that originally it was made from real oranges much like homemade lemonade, but in the 60s it was at least partially artificial, and yet somehow still contained debris. Not pulp, you understand, but who knows what in the bottom. Floor sweepings possibly. It was also almost always over-diluted, and never the right sweetness. Ever. It was always far too sweet, or somehow not sweet enough, there was never a balance. It was never good. And often it was vile.<br />
<br />
So, the ungrateful child who had already refused tea, would refuse the orange squash too. That's when the dirty looks were pretty much guaranteed. Often the comments. Often the exasperated questions. All I ever asked for was water.<br />
<br />
Through all this, I stayed polite. And resolute. Thanks be, my mother always supported me 100%. So, at least, when she was around it never got to the point of me being actually scolded by anyone. As I got a little older, and was visiting people without her, and people wouldn't go so easy on me, I got sarcasm and even criticism. Now, as far as I know, the Big Book of Etiquette (wherever it is) does not include either of those. Which tells you that this tea ritual is not hospitality at all. It's something else. A test?<br />
<br />
I survived, obviously. I still hate tea. The world has changed around me, and it's been an awfully long time since I was offered tea. I tend to mix with people who offer wine to visitors. I have kids who like tea. They make their own.<br />
<br />
Looking back, I learned an awful lot about people from this bizarre ritual. Most of it revolves around habit and expectations. I would see the look of discomfort on their faces as the dissent confused them. I never wanted to hurt anyone, and I hope I did no real harm. I would like to think it caused them to re-think their attitude towards visitors, to actually realise what hospitality is, but I doubt it. I doubt they remembered it for long, and it certainly wouldn't have had the impact on them that it had on me. For cultural habits to change it takes time and repetition, and I was never a frequent visitor. Once I grew up I simply avoided visiting the type of people who would do this, and once you start on that road, it leads you to the fringe. The less you socialize with people of cultural habit, the less you can relate to them, and the harder it gets.<br />
<br />
Here in the 21st century the freaks have risen. A lot of the rituals have melted away and there is far more authenticity in society. Everything is more flexible, people are more adaptable. People don't look shocked anymore when somebody is non-mainstream. There are still beige people, and they are allowed to exist. I just like giving them a little poke now and again, because had we never done so, we wouldn't have reached this level. It was the troublemakers that changed all the things that needed changing. The people who started the ball rolling over slavery were not beige. Revolutionaries are not beige. The women who fought for the right to vote were not beige.<br />
<br />
Each event in history, especially in comparatively recent history, that has caused the masses to actually stop and think, and make changes which benefit everyone, began with a few people who didn't fit in, who thought outside the box, and who dared to suggest a different way of doing things. Hippies and human rights go together, and that shouldn't surprise anyone. They dared to grow their hair AND they dared to oppose war.<br />
<br />
Beige people don't really do much harm, but they don't do a lot of good either. They are apathetic to change if not actually resistant. When people like me kick them up the butt by forcing them to consider the existence of men wearing eyeliner, there's always a slim chance it leads to other things. It might give them a push, you never know. We need movers and shakers, and they are rarely if ever beige.<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.2px;">"Well</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2px;">-</span><span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; line-height: 18.2px;">behaved women seldom make history."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: arial, sans-serif; line-height: 18.2px;">- Laurel Thatcher Ulrich</span><br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-69415688633862001652015-11-08T06:11:00.000-08:002015-11-08T06:33:10.226-08:00The Loneliness of AuthenticityI'm currently re-reading a book that I've read countless times, and every time I read it I get something new from it. Wow, that must a deep, serious book, eh? Actually, on the face of it, it's anything but. It's a children's book, albeit for "older readers."<br />
<br />
It's call "A Hat Full Of Sky" and it's by Terry Pratchett, one of my favourite authors. Ostensibly it's a fantasy story about a young witch called Tiffany, her relationship with the Nac Mac Feegles, a race of tiny people, and an invisible antagonist, a "hiver". It's in the detail that Pratchett gets to you, and this time round at least, I'm inspired to write by a seemingly rather dull character, Petulia Gristle. She's a witch of Tiffany's age, with a lack of self-esteem, which causes her to agree with everyone. This can cause contortions in her mind, and a lot of spoken back-peddling.<br />
<br />
It's an extreme, a caricature, but at the same time we all know people who are too polite or weak (which is it?) to express themselves fully and honestly, and most of us do it at least sometimes to avoid an argument. Petulia takes it to the nth, and does a complete about turn in her opinions, in order to please.<br />
<br />
I've watched people do this. It fascinates me. Obviously, it's a good thing when people change their minds after they learn something, but sometimes you see it happen in real time, when the only thing they have actually learned is that their opinion was unpopular.<br />
<br />
It's not easy having a very different opinion to those around you, especially if they are being forceful about it. If you are a true free-thinker, this can happen a lot. In fact, if you are fully authentic in your opinions, it can mean that there is nobody you are in full agreement with. There'll be bits obviously, but not enough. And so, there will always be "difficult" discussions. You'll be talking about something quite merrily, and suddenly the agreement comes to a full stop.<br />
<br />
It's an extremely uncomfortable place to be. It can be temporarily awkward, or it can be a way of life. If you know your own mind well, and you don't capitulate to the ideas of others, it can feel like you are completely and utterly alone.<br />
<br />
Not only that, it never gets any better. As you learn more about yourself, you naturally become less able to just "go along" with the crowd.<br />
<br />
I therefore invite you today to make yourself more uncomfortable. Some people will resist. Some won't even take this test. Most of those who take it will not like the results, and many will dismiss it. In other words, expect denial. This isn't going to be fun.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html">https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html</a><br />
<br />
I expect discussion, but I'll understand if you don't.<br />
<br />
I'll return to the topic of authenticity later in the week.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-33827664352495272252015-11-05T07:14:00.000-08:002015-11-05T17:09:20.911-08:00Arguing Against YourselfIt's no secret I have my pet topics and issues. It's no secret I sometimes foolishly get into arguments on them. It's also no secret that I find myself sometimes feeling frustrated by those who argue, but aren't arguing against me, they are actually arguing against themselves.<br />
<br />
WHAT?<br />
<br />
No really.<br />
<br />
Take evolution, for example. This really isn't something that you can choose to believe in or not at whim. It's a proven theory. A fact. Nevertheless, there are still people who deny it, and the reason is that they don't understand it. What they have in their heads as the details of evolution are all wrong. And they deny that. It's actually got to a point where I have lost interest in arguing it (yes!) because we're just not on the same page.<br />
<br />
It's not just everyday idiots arguing the wrong idea either. In the US they've actually had "science advisers" (Republican, obviously) who say something completely inane about evolution, and then scoff at it. How a large and important nation like the US can allow this to happen completely baffles me - it's no wonder the world is in the mess it's in - but there it is. 21st century and you have people at that level failing to understand a scientific principle, and then arguing against their OWN misunderstanding of it.<br />
<br />
It's usually a religious thing. Some religious strands have decided that the Bible is a better source of information than science, despite everything we know about how, when, and why it was written, and one of the main reasons they deny evolution is that they think the Earth is very young. So there hasn't been time for evolution. That at least is a logical consistency within their own belief system. Credit where it's due. But the Earth isn't young, and there has been time, so all the stupid remarks about things "suddenly" evolving are based on that nonsense.<br />
<br />
These religious people tell me to read the Bible. I have. More thoroughly than many of them. I found all the scientific absurdities in it that they missed. But if I am required to read their book, could they not take the time to read a book I recommend? I have so far been unable to convince any of the evolution deniers to read Jerry Coyne's very well-written explanation of evolution (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649">http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649</a>). I haven't yet read Bill Nye's book on the topic, but I'm told <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223">http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223</a> is also very good. These are not heavy, dry, academic tomes, but books suitable for anyone to read. I think they are afraid of understanding it. Probably for good reason.<br />
<br />
Evolution is math. It's actually very simple math. Once you understand it, you have to be a special kind of stupid to deny it. But as I said, what they are denying isn't the actual theory of evolution, but some cocked up version of it that they've acquired, which is not the same thing at all.<br />
<br />
Then there's feminism. This is a big issue for me because, well, duh, I'm a woman. And I'm a feisty woman. And I don't like the way women are treated in this world. I don't like that we have reached this point in our history and we are still seeing the most appalling oppression of women in many parts of the world, and we still don't have complete equality in the enlightened west. And the reason we don't is that so many people just don't understand what feminism is.<br />
<br />
Oh, they think they do. They openly say it. They say things like "I support equal rights, but I don't like this man-hating stuff." Well, the man-hating stuff isn't feminism. Never was. There's nothing feminists can do about weird militant elements, anymore than any ideology can reign in its extremists. Every movement there ever has been has had it's lunatic fringe. You cannot blame the mainstream part of the movement for them.<br />
<br />
No, those who argue against feminism are arguing against a concept of feminism that exists only in their own heads. Plenty of people do understand it. And, yes, plenty of them are men. Feminism benefits men. Well, most men. It doesn't benefit bad men, obviously, and nor should it. They are the reason we need it. And, yes, we do.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2011/mar/08/daniel-craig-drag-international-womens-day-video">http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2011/mar/08/daniel-craig-drag-international-womens-day-video</a><br />
<br />
Being a woman, and being a feminist, helps me understand racial issues. It's not the same, but there is enough of a similarity that it makes actually no sense for me to be racist. It I were to discriminate on the basis of race, it would be ludicrous. I've experienced actual hate based on my gender, and I know how it feels. I also know what the very subtle sexism feels like, which is why I oppose the very subtle forms of racism. You can be racist without lynch mobs.<br />
<br />
Because I understand that feminism is not, actually, anti-man, or anti anything - other than injustice, I understand that Black Lives Matter is not anti-white, or anti anything - other than injustice. When one group of people is being targeted, then any movement to change that has to focus on that group. You can focus on multiple groups. But focusing on humanity as a whole, as wonderful as that is, is <i>not enough</i>. Human rights are certainly part of the equation, but despite a long history of human rights, we still have injustice aimed at certain groups of humans, so we have to make more effort there.<br />
<br />
Because I understand that the crazies that some people associate with feminism do not represent it, I also understand that the crazies that people associate with Muslims do not represent them. The great irony of all this, is that those who oppose feminism are the <i>first</i> to say "Not All Men Are Bad". And I've heard plenty of Muslim-hating Christians get extremely upset about Westboro Baptist Church or whatever...insisting "not all Christians are like that". So, they DO understand that an aberrant sub-set is not the whole deal. But they conveniently forget it.<br />
<br />
Meanwhile, they fight a concept in their heads which is not reality.<br />
<br />
The anti-feminists fight a concept of feminism, which is not representative of feminism.<br />
The lunatic fringe of feminism fight a concept of men, which is not representative of men.<br />
The anti-Muslims fight a concept of Muslims, which is not representative of Muslims.<br />
The lunatic fringe of Muslims fight a concept of the west, which is not representative of the west.<br />
<br />
And so on. They are all arguing against their own warped, weird ideas which were never the thing itself. This applies to so much.<br />
<br />
Misunderstandings of the group or thing you oppose. Why do you oppose it? Because you don't understand it.<br />
<br />
You are free to oppose anything you please, but if you do so based on misunderstanding, it becomes ridiculous.<br />
<br />
And so it is with the topic of climate change also. Rabid climate change deniers have all sorts of "reasons" why they deny it, but all of them are caused by not actually understand the science behind it. "The models are wrong". Well, they were models. "Not all scientists agree." That's called science. "Natural cycles." Notwithstanding. "Ice is increasing in Antarctica." Investigate why. "LOOK I HAVE A SNOWBALL!" You're a fucking idiot.<br />
<br />
And the same applies to much of the nonsense that we read everyday that we've lately categorized as pseudo-science, and of course all the conspiracy theories.<br />
<br />
A few months ago I had to write a blog explaining how microwaves work because I had university educated friends afraid of microwaves, and their effect on food. Because these intelligent people had conflated radiation with radioactivity. Because they didn't understand, and this misunderstanding led to fear and opposition.<br />
<br />
What did we used to call it when we didn't understand something, became afraid of it as a result, and then opposed it or avoided it? Maybe created elaborate systems to oppose or avoid it?<br />
<br />
We called it superstition. Most religion is based on superstition, which shows you how pervasive it has been in human history. Superstition causes tremendous problems. We don't talk about it much these days, but it's still with us. Much of our prejudice and oppression amounts to superstition. Fear. Fear of things we don't understand. And especially fear of things we THINK we understand, but really don't.<br />
<br />
It's no surprise to me that it's often the same people who oppose feminism, deny evolution, deny climate change, fear Muslims, and believe in a slew of other nonsense, because it's a personality type, or possibly a learning disability. It seems to be a requirement if you are a US Republican, especially if you are a presidential candidate. Fear, fear, and more fear. That's why they love their guns. They fear everything.<br />
<br />
Maybe if they took the time to learn.........Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-59300617513821404872015-10-31T05:50:00.001-07:002015-10-31T05:50:04.630-07:00Dress Up TimeSeveral people have mentioned to me lately that they are having a hard time finding a ladies' Halloween costume that isn't "sexy". One friend even showed me a picture of an equestrian outfit with a plunging neckline and a tiny added tutu, presumably for the "sexy" horsewoman. Definitely not practical for riding. Not everyone wants to dress "sexy" and so while some people are OK with these costumes, some are not, and are looking for something else. The "something else" is increasingly hard to find, apparently.<br />
<br />
We didn't dress up for Halloween when I was growing up, there was no trick or treating. Halloween for us was a bit of bobbing for apples and scaring ourselves with superstitious stuff about mirrors. My first costume party at Halloween was as an adult. I chose to dress as a "naughty nun". Ripped fishnet stockings and a very short habit. It was what you would call ironical. Nuns aren't supposed to be naughty, you see. That was the joke.<br />
<br />
So, you see I'm not averse to that sort of thing.<br />
<br />
But we have a problem greater than that. We have "sexy" costumes for children. And a lot of people are objecting. This problem goes way beyond Halloween costumes. People been complaining for a number of years now of clothing for girls that is considered age inappropriate, and the difficulty of finding anything else.<br />
<br />
This gives us a bit of a problem, because thinking women do not want to dress their daughters in these inappropriate styles, while at the same time, not wishing to criticize the styles themselves, because they want to wear them. Words have to be chosen carefully. You can't go around calling these age-inappropriate things "sluttty", for example, and then object to having your own outfit described in the same way. We are trying to stop the policing of fashion in this way.<br />
<br />
To figure this all out we have to look a bit deeper.<br />
<br />
I have the advantage of coming from a different time and place. When my girls were toddlers, they ran on the beach naked. This was normal, in that time and place. When they were a little older, but still pre-school, they wore what were effectively bikini bottoms. No tops, because they were small children. You could, at that time, walk into any children's clothing shop and buy them. What did a small child need a bikini top for?<br />
<br />
We came to Canada, and discovered something very odd. On the beaches there were toddlers in bikinis. There were also slightly older girls running naked. You could tell who the European immigrants were in this way. The Canadian mothers were shocked to see little girls running around naked. The European mothers were shocked to see little girls in bikinis. I witnessed more than one argument over it. To the European mother, the bikini sexualized the child, because it emphasized the idea of "breasts" even though she had none.<br />
<br />
You could easily take sides here, based on your own background and views on the matter, but the fact remains, these were all good people. These were all responsible parents doing what they believed to be best for their child. And clearly, there were some strong feelings about it all. How do you allow for everyone's feelings, and smooth this all out?<br />
<br />
Actually, it's quite easy. Mind your own business. You choose what you and your child wear, and stay out of what others choose.<br />
<br />
The objection to this, and I hear you, is that dressing a child in an age-inappropriate outfit is going to attract perverts. It may even be true. But I don't know about you, I don't want to live in a world where perverts run my life for me. I don't want to give them that power. Moreover, I'm not convinced that dressing your daughter in a Victorian dress, or in completely practical kid clothes such as jeans and a t-shirt, is going to protect her from perverts. Do we have any data here? I don't know. When girls are sexually assaulted does anyone ask "what was she wearing?" like they do with adults?<br />
<br />
And if you came across a case where a child was assaulted, and the assailant blamed it on her clothing, would that give him any credibility in your eyes? Think about that very carefully, because that's what it comes down to.<br />
<br />
Why then, would a thinking woman object to a "sexy" costume, if we don't believe it's anybody else's business what we wear?<br />
<br />
This was put to me, in one such conversation, "you can't have it all ways, you don't want anyone criticizing or even commenting on what you wear, but you complain about the shops being full of "sexy" costumes, and you insist that clothing is just clothing, yet you yourself note that this is "sexy" clothing, and as as a result, you get uptight about it, and really uptight when it's for children."<br />
<br />
Fair comment, but missing the point completely.<br />
<br />
If you've read this far and whether you had considered this whole issue before, or you hadn't, and you are now pondering it, what I want you to think about is <i>why women are angry about people telling us what to wear, and why, in the first place.</i><br />
<br />
What we are hearing, is that we don't get to choose. This is what we are always hearing. This is the entire basis of our fight for equality. It's not that we object to the existence of "sexy" costumes, it's that we can't find any others. It's that we are told that's where our value lies, as a "sexy" thing. Maybe we want to be "sexy", and maybe we don't, we'd like that choice. But we are told, no, you don't get that choice. You don't don't even get to decide which is which.<br />
<br />
We are told that others will decide for us.<br />
<br />
And then there's this.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.salon.com/2015/10/30/slut_shaming_baby_girls_is_really_not_okay_billboard_is_under_fire_for_tweeting_now_deleted_sexual_innuendo_about_2_year_old_north_west/">http://www.salon.com/2015/10/30/slut_shaming_baby_girls_is_really_not_okay_billboard_is_under_fire_for_tweeting_now_deleted_sexual_innuendo_about_2_year_old_north_west/</a><br />
<br />
In an interesting twist here, I was told recently that I should stop looking at this as a feminist issue because the worst culprits when it comes to criticizing what women wear are other women. And it's true. Bitchiness and gossip has long been a hobby for many women (not that men don't do it) and I doubt that will ever change. The reason people do this is quite often lack of self-esteem. Not always - everyone is capable of it - but typically somebody who is insecure in themselves will pick on others. It's a classic human failing.<br />
<br />
But not all women are feminists. A lot of women reject feminism, for a variety of reasons. Feminism is not "something women do". It's something people who see imbalance in the current system do. We see things that are wrong in the current system, and we speak out against them. And the sexualization of children is wrong. 100% wrong. No excuses wrong. No ifs or buts wrong. No wiggle room wrong. You don't need to be a woman to see that.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-81465344362640484742015-10-28T06:47:00.000-07:002015-10-28T06:55:41.304-07:00Judging Books etc.First a little hypocrisy for you:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11959231/Law-student-criticised-by-fellow-students-for-wearing-smart-clothes-and-heels-to-lectures.html">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/11959231/Law-student-criticised-by-fellow-students-for-wearing-smart-clothes-and-heels-to-lectures.html</a><br />
<br />
Does she have the right to wear what she likes without comment?<br />
<br />
Well, that depends. Does everyone have that same right?<br />
<br />
Oh dear, no, she criticizes what <i>they</i> wear.<br />
<br />
I suggest this is six of one and half a dozen of the other. You can't have it both ways.<br />
<br />
But what do we have here? More of the same. More people telling others what to do, more people setting themselves up as fashion police. Self-appointed experts. More "shoulding".<br />
<br />
The problem is that we all do it. Rarely for the best of reasons, either. Why do we do it?<br />
<br />
There are many reasons, but I think the most powerful one is best described as "a sense of occasion". Now, that doesn't just mean the king must wear a crown. It means we are going to stare at the people wearing PJs to Walmart. We have decided, among ourselves, that certain items of clothing are chiefly designed to be worn in bed, and while relaxing within one's home in them is OK, going out is not.<br />
<br />
Recently however, many people have decided to ignore that "rule". It's really not uncommon to see people shopping in PJs. 30 years ago it would probably have caused such a stir that only real eccentrics would have dared do it. But now, it's not a big deal.<br />
<br />
There are still those who would never do it, and there are plenty of people who disapprove of it, but it's generally not considered the done thing to say anything.<br />
<br />
Let's pretend you did say something. What would you say? That's not appropriate?<br />
<br />
We don't stop and ask ourselves why we feel the way we do about such sartorial rebellion, and we may learn something if we did.<br />
<br />
So, if 30 years ago people simply didn't wear PJs to go shopping, and now they do, what changed?<br />
<br />
Attitudes are not as individual as we think. We are influenced by others, and one of the things that influences us are the questions that make us think. Where's the harm in wearing PJs to go shopping? Seriously, who does it hurt?<br />
<br />
And in this way, the rebels, those who cause us to examine our reactions, serve a wonderful purpose. Because if we can release all our old notions about PJs, we are on the way to ridding ourselves of many other attitudes that actually make no sense.<br />
<br />
I'm quite sure some of you saying "we have to draw the line somewhere". Well, no, we don't have to. There is nothing that compels us to do anything of the sort, other than climate, and peer pressure. There is no good, solid, rational reason why we can't wear our PJs everywhere. There are only agreements that we make.<br />
<br />
PJs, as we know them, a loose fitting pair of pants and a top, did not begin life as sleepwear. They were, and often still are, the everyday clothing for millions of people in many parts of Asia. The word pyjama or pajama simply meant "trousers". Traditionally they had a drawstring in the waist and this is common, but not essential, in the modern western sleepwear version.<br />
<br />
A similar outfit is the scrubs worn by many in the healthcare profession. That is to say, the working garment of professionals. It is very practical, and has become normal and expected. When you are attended to by an ER doctor wearing scrubs you don't say "Ye Gods, he's out in his PJs".<br />
<br />
Yes, we can tell the difference, but let's be honest, it's a trivial difference. It's all based on details and expectations. Without experience, we'd not be able to tell the difference.<br />
<br />
Once you have started down the road of awareness, these things become very obvious, and it becomes harder and harder to convince oneself that we have GOOD reasons to accept one and reject the other, and I think that is why some are afraid of it. Where will it all end? They cry.<br />
<br />
Actually, it's all very easy. This is where etiquette comes in.<br />
<br />
If I wear my PJs to the shops it doesn't do any harm. But if I wear them to somebody's wedding, they just may feel slighted. They may feel that I care so little about them, that I didn't bother getting dressed. I think they'd be right.<br />
<br />
Getting dressed more formally than we are used to is a lot of bother. Some people enjoy it, some not so much. But most of us are willing to do it to make somebody happy. Children grin and bear it when their parents clean them up for photos. Men who never normally wear ties will put one on if their wife asks them to, when they go out. These are gestures we make. Now we look at it the other way round - there's no harm in it. It won't kill me to dress up now and again. It's a compromise. We make the effort to show we care.<br />
<br />
Who is harmed if we don't dress up to go to a lecture? Who is harmed if we do? Nobody. So wear what you like.<br />
<br />
Of course, I didn't get up early to write about PJs or judgemental students. You know me better than that. These are just symptoms of a much bigger area of interest, one that I've discussed many times, and no doubt will as long as I live.<br />
<br />
How long ago was the saying "Don't judge a book by its cover" written? Well, it was a phrase known in 1860, whether it was original then or not, we don't know, but there surely can't be any adult in the English-speaking world who has not heard it.<br />
<br />
Yet we still do it. Why do we do it? It is so obviously wrong, it is stupid.<br />
<br />
I want you to try this.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://reverent.org/criminal_or_not/">http://reverent.org/criminal_or_not/</a><br />
<br />
How did you do? Not an easy test. Now ask yourself what criteria you used to try to decide.<br />
<br />
When more complex versions of this test are done, real conclusions can be drawn from our prejudices. For a start, the better looking they are, the less chance they'll be suspected. I don't need to tell you what happens when race is thrown in.<br />
<br />
And we've all heard "You could just tell he was no good". But you can't. The young thug that just got arrested for slipping a wallet out of an old lady's bag probably looks like a young thug. But the banker that took the old lady's savings probably looks very "nice". And he's far, far worse. But we're fooled by business suits and haircuts every time.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
It is really hard to get past that. We profile people as we walk down the street. We choose who is safe and who looks dodgy. How do we choose? Hunch? Instinct? </div>
<br />
Apparently we're not that bad at this. Results from the test above were pretty promising; most people got scores above 50%. One answer then, as to why we judge by appearances is that, more often than not we are right. But even if we are right 70% of the time, that means we are wrong one time in three. And that's just not good enough for it to be fair. You may as well judge a man with phrenology.<br />
<br />
So, despite our skills in this area being limited, we still do it. And it's wrong. It doesn't matter that we've always done it, it doesn't matter that it's "human nature", or that we are stuck not having anything better to go on.<br />
<br />
It is none of your business what other people wear. You don't have to like it. Nobody is asking you to wear it. "Dressing up" does not make you a bad student, or a bad person, and nor does "dressing down". And it doesn't make you a good person either. It's all just a matter of taste and priorities.<br />
<br />
It is such an easy trap to fall into. But it makes no sense. Your own personal preferences are absolutely not a way to judge other people. Remember, "I'm right, you're wrong, I'm better than you, and you're no good because you are not like me" is bigotry. We have enough of that in the world, over much harder matters. For pity's sake don't be a fashion bigot.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXt6RLT7X2VajXfYoqO4gjHhQFqMQbCPAa5BQJi5a_lKSPFcwDcj-5UNfhPTxwk-DWDQU_rAHYoUiYhYRV0cGyfHl4o0874frnqmwV_4mqBiR61axfrWTGuaJ2V_gMqpYO7zluNDoJGlNU/s1600/David-Ores.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXt6RLT7X2VajXfYoqO4gjHhQFqMQbCPAa5BQJi5a_lKSPFcwDcj-5UNfhPTxwk-DWDQU_rAHYoUiYhYRV0cGyfHl4o0874frnqmwV_4mqBiR61axfrWTGuaJ2V_gMqpYO7zluNDoJGlNU/s320/David-Ores.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-14730690612593009592015-10-27T10:39:00.001-07:002015-10-27T12:05:29.523-07:00Conservative? No, Thank You. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHUIuET2S1tUsyYS9xG_ilwx7gkaxVOIMoZb5i4saiDFh-oduN2UogCCKfUdV0AmmrC7WvC6O-rqpU5VgRDwiz6qzcGvR3FmCLLObkaJ3pnhRTySxmiYDgjGyNwEECow-6-LgWSpLhg1vY/s1600/marriage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHUIuET2S1tUsyYS9xG_ilwx7gkaxVOIMoZb5i4saiDFh-oduN2UogCCKfUdV0AmmrC7WvC6O-rqpU5VgRDwiz6qzcGvR3FmCLLObkaJ3pnhRTySxmiYDgjGyNwEECow-6-LgWSpLhg1vY/s320/marriage.jpg" width="253" /></a></div>
I have a shock for you this morning, in the "things you don't know about me" department. I'm not into tradition.<br />
<br />
Are you OK? Didn't see that one coming, did you?<br />
<br />
No, but seriously folks.<br />
<br />
People get split into conservatives and whatever they call those who are trying to change things. Conservatives, at least in theory, represent the older, established way of doing things. The older way of doing things often sucks, and the reason we move forward is because we find a better way of doing things. We progress. Which is why one word used for non-conservatives is progressives.<br />
<br />
It's a direction thing. Not an inertia thing. Progress is inevitable, hence the "conserving" concept. Which often means going backwards, or at least LOOKING in that direction for ideas.<br />
<br />
That was why, when the Canadian political entity called itself the Progressive Conservatives, we all did a head tilt. Right and left at the same time? Won't that involve spinning in a circle?<br />
<br />
I'm not quite sure what they DID mean by it, a bit less conservative than a non-progressive conservative? Anyway, moot now. The new blood fighting over the PC leadership are quoted in the media as saying "times have changed". No shit Sherlock.<br />
<br />
But outside of political parties, regular humans do relate to one of many scales, including a conservatism scale. We can number it from 0 to 100 and see where people find themselves.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHl9m5Xco2y-XM7wAqcjg1kjbET4VLv2mbF-3GFCb4htpyy8aixXWqFnf-3Dhw_4wb5PgQPQG8MSHnWjJzwn83qK-RgVlK3U10O2s6KOZ7_AwUC9kCy1knKSBuQI_xtrPWZ4cPGAZ9V6Y1/s1600/conservativism.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHl9m5Xco2y-XM7wAqcjg1kjbET4VLv2mbF-3GFCb4htpyy8aixXWqFnf-3Dhw_4wb5PgQPQG8MSHnWjJzwn83qK-RgVlK3U10O2s6KOZ7_AwUC9kCy1knKSBuQI_xtrPWZ4cPGAZ9V6Y1/s320/conservativism.png" width="320" /></a></div>
That's far from being accurate you understand, just a vague idea that it's rare to find people at the extremes, and that humans in general are slightly more progressive than not, which is why we do, actually change and move forward, while the other animals don't. The peak of that lump actually includes most people you know today. That's PEOPLE, not governments. Governments tend to be further down the scale than people. They tend to be the elite, and the elite have a vested interest in the status quo.<br />
<br />
Individuals can be fairly easily convinced to change. The larger the group, the less likely change will occur, because the one warning against it tends to influence the others. We are funny beings.<br />
<br />
In my family I am the second most progressive. I am the one saying "we don't have to have turkey for dinner at Christmas you know" and Tom (the most progressive) is even willing to have a curry. But the group opinion is that there MUST be turkey, so there shall be turkey, because I cave.<br />
<br />
When you find people not doing the whole turkey thing they are usually either just a small family, with nobody else to worry about, or they have a whole OTHER family tradition that trumps turkey.<br />
<br />
That said, despite being a large family, we are more progressive than a number of other families, on many issues, due to having a progressive matriarch, no doubt. Maybe also because we are "foreign", but that can go either way.<br />
<br />
Families are a sort of micro version of society as a whole, as anyone who has ever studied any sociology knows. You have the individual as the starter unit, then the family, then the tribe (oh yes we still do, it's just different), then the larger community and so on, all the way to the human race. And if you watch how a person is on the family level you can tell a lot about how he is on the larger level, even to party politics, and I think it's important that we understand the overlap between personal and political conservatism. They are not the same thing, but the correlation is close enough to use as a guide.<br />
<br />
Tradition as a concept is neutral. It's neither a good nor a bad thing. But your feelings towards it are not neutral. So it's just like a colour. It would be absurd to say that purple is good or bad, but some people like it, and some don't. Some like it an awful lot, and some hate it. Some have nothing against it, but think it can be "too much" sometimes, while others like it in some places (the garden, maybe) but not others (clothing).<br />
<br />
If you have no tradition, more decisions have to be made, and people are lazy. If you have too much tradition people feel stifled by not getting to make any decisions. Hence the need for balance.<br />
<br />
And we manage pretty well. We have to. Change is all around us, and we cope or die, frankly. Remember, adapting to change is the basis behind evolution. Even the most die-hard traditionalists adapt a bit. But on the other hand, it doesn't take a crazy person to get hung up on certain aspects of tradition. And as I said, tradition and family go together.<br />
<br />
Right.<br />
<br />
As it happens, I have seen both sides of this, and not in the usual order. NOW I have the big happy family thing. Now. And I like it. It's good. There are all sorts of benefits.<br />
<br />
It's also not essential. It's not even necessarily the best. Is it normal?<br />
<br />
I grew up in a one parent household, or a 3 parent household, depending on how you look at it. My father had died when I was a baby, and we lived with my maternal grandparents. I constantly heard that that situation was weird, but when you look back on human history it was incredibly common. People die. They used to die younger more often, and there have always been kids raised by one parent, or none. Plenty were raised by other relatives. An older sister even. The reason we have the word "orphan" in our language is that we needed a word to describe this common occurrence.<br />
<br />
These days the absence of one parent in the child's home is far more likely to be from a relationship break-up, but again, it's far from rare. In the latest Canadian census, the two-parent family makes up 67% of families. In Britain it's 76%, and in the US it's actually only 46%, so statistically it's not "the norm". And you can go wah wah wah, if you like, but unless we examine every family and find out who's happy and who isn't, it doesn't tell us much.<br />
<br />
I know I was happy in my weird family, I had all the attention I needed (didn't need much), and I didn't go short of basic needs at all.<br />
<br />
A family is a group of people who live together, two or more. They may or may not be related. They may not even like each other, some of the time at least, they most certainly don't all of the time. But they manage for the most part not to kill each other, to share food and shelter and services. Some families are more functional than others. There is no such thing as a normal family. Any definition attempted is going to be unkind to anyone whose family didn't fit that definition. And it's not political correctness, that makes that so, it's reality. Any definition has to be fairly loose.<br />
<br />
But still, there are those who talk about the traditional family, meaning their tradition, obviously. They tend to mean also, two parents, one male, one female, who were married prior to having children, and perhaps even, that this is a first marriage for both of them. This is seen by those of a more conservative mindset as ideal.<br />
<br />
Is it? It might be if it's a good marriage, by good people. But as a matter of fact, some of the nastiest people I've ever known, the most messed up, the most amoral, have come from a family like that.<br />
<br />
As picture perfect as it might be, it is no guarantee of anything, while families of all other types can work really well.<br />
<br />
The traditional family sounds good. Mine IS good. But not all of them are. In my experience the chances of a family being good or not do not rest on the numbers, age, gender, or relationship status, they rest on the individuals concerned being people who want that family to be a good family.<br />
<br />
Which brings us to family values. A delightful subject. Just what IS a family value?<br />
<br />
I think a reasonable suggestion is that members of the family support one another. This may be by sharing resources, or it may be by listening to them. If somebody has a problem, a good family is sympathetic and helpful. In a good family you have people who care about you, even if you argue.<br />
<br />
Hate is not a family value. Violence is not a family value.<br />
<br />
We gained a family member because his original family treated him like shit. He is not related to me in any way, but he became my son. He behaves like a son. He does son things. This includes picking his adoptive brother up in the middle of the night after telling him on the previous occasion "that's the last time I do that for you, come on, get your plans together" because he really doesn't want him walking home 5km in the rain. That's the sort of thing family do.<br />
<br />
His original family beat him, starved him, stole from him, locked him out in the cold in winter, and treated him like an indentured servant. He still visits his father and helps him with things, because that's the kind of man he is.<br />
<br />
So, I may have a slightly different view of family values, one way and another.<br />
<br />
You see, the reason that, for so long, the sought after family was one man, one woman, married, and with children, is that there are many benefits there. The man gets a "helpmeet", the woman gets a "protector", and together they get people to look after them in their old age. Sounds alright?<br />
<br />
It does until you get into the whole chattel, domestic slavery, "do my bidding, woman" thing. There has always been this dark side to marriage.<br />
<br />
Don't be afraid to click on this, it's short and in simple language:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/owd/docs/domestic_violence.pdf">http://www.citizenship.gov.on.ca/owd/docs/domestic_violence.pdf</a><br />
<br />
<br />
That's some very helpful data, but it doesn't tell the whole story. It doesn't tell individual stories. They seem to have more impact on people who may otherwise move on to the next blog, so here's a story selected at random from my collection:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/27/woman-faces-off-with-husband-she-claims-tried-to-kill-her">http://www.torontosun.com/2014/05/27/woman-faces-off-with-husband-she-claims-tried-to-kill-her</a><br />
<br />
Like so many of these situations, it's her word against his. Without witnesses, what do you do? Unfortunately these stories are not rare. Are they are all lying? When a suspect changes his story (part of the pattern in domestic violence, incidentally) you would think that would be an immediate red flag.<br />
<br />
But of course, that's extreme. Men don't usually murder their wives, even if they threaten to. They just say things in anger.......<br />
<br />
Are death threats family values? Is that a good marriage? That is not a marriage at all. That is not a family. That is not right.<br />
<br />
"Well, most men don't threaten to kill their wives. I've never threatened to kill my wife, not even in jest!"<br />
<br />
Oh dear, we're back to #notallmen.<br />
<br />
Not all dogs bite, but if you are in the street and 200lbs of barking teeth starts running towards you, is it any help to know that?<br />
<br />
When I had small children I employed two girls in the village as babysitters, they were sisters. They also had a brother. They came from a respectable two-parent family.<br />
<br />
One day the older one asked me if Martin was violent towards me and I told her no, never. I learned that her father had been beating her mother. She had a feeling this wasn't right, but she wasn't quite sure. She wasn't completely convinced that I was telling the truth.<br />
<br />
A lot of girls grow up like that. They think it's normal. Well, it used to be. It was legal to beat a wife. Still is in some parts of the world. Doesn't mean all men took or take advantage of that, but there's something wrong when it's allowed or encouraged. That's wrong. No ifs or buts. It's wrong. It's just another example of women being treated as second-class citizens.<br />
<br />
If anyone wishes to "inform" me that men get beaten up by wives, you're too late. I have that data. You just gave away that you didn't read the link I included, further up. You ask for data, but you ignore it. That tells me you came to this discussion ready to argue, not listen. This is why I keep harping on about it.<br />
<br />
If we are ever going to get anywhere with this massive, international problem, we first have to acknowledge it exists. We then have to admit that it truly is a problem for women. Not a small thing, or a rare thing, or something that will just go away by itself. Then we have to stop this rubbish about traditional families and family values. It's holding us back.<br />
<br />
Domestic violence is traditional. It's a tradition that needs to end, and it won't do so in a vacuum. We have to look at what is enabling it. Change is sometimes not optional, but critical. We need to look forwards, not backwards. If we are too keen on defending the old ways, we end up retaining the worst bits of it. If we are too quick to say #notmyfamily then we dismiss those for whom this is a daily reality. If we offer simplistic Duggar-like solutions to family problem, they continue and multiply.<br />
<br />
The only way we will ever fix this is the end of patriarchy as a system. The conservative mindset wishes to preseve the patriarchy, as well as several other long-established flawed systems. This is why I reject the conservative mindset <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-82278452550639325552015-10-27T08:46:00.002-07:002015-10-27T08:46:54.858-07:00"Oh my God Mom, they're all ignorant racists!"Becoming an adult brings many challenges, and the financial responsibilities are just the beginning of it. At some point comes the realisation that there is more to this world than sport and music, and sooner or later you find yourself talking ethics, politics etc. with your friends.<br />
<br />
For me, this came very early. At 14 I was already having heavy debates on serious topics, asking too many questions, and reading Marx in my spare time. I already started choosing friend by values, rather than the bands they listened to, and I wasn't your typical light-headed teen.<br />
<br />
But even if you are an aware young person, there are surprises.<br />
<br />
My younger daughter moved away from the rural idyll we raised her in, and jumped into the deep end of adult life in the city - it really hasn't been easy for her, one way or another. But this is not her story. This is about her epiphany. Lately she has spent more and more time looking at "issues", and today she contacted me having had a falling out with an old school friend over one such issue.<br />
<br />
She showed me the conversation. It wouldn't matter whether you agreed with her actual stance or not, it's quite clear that she is being the adult in the conversation, and the "friend" is just parroting something he's heard in the media, or from another person who can't think for themselves. She kept her cool, and kept to the facts. I'm proud of her. But it breaks my heart to hear her say that - there goes another old friend, and.....<br />
<br />
"Oh my God Mom, they're all ignorant racists!"<br />
<br />
There are some things you can get past. Differences of opinion are natural, normal, and good. But when you are being bombarded by the most egregious racism, backed up by "facts" that can be easily demonstrated to be complete nonsense, you have to question the core values of the person believing and sharing the nonsense.<br />
<br />
Why do they believe it? What do they get from sharing it?<br />
<br />
It all goes back to fear of other, and the belief that "The way I do things is right, and the only way to do things." In other words, bigotry.<br />
<br />
My daughter would like to remain friends with other people connected to this person, so she can't even say what she's really thinking. What she'd like to say is:<br />
<br />
"I refuse to tolerate racism or sexism of any kind" <br />
<br />
But apparently that statement is seen to be inflammatory. Eventually though, she's going to have to say it, for clarity.<br />
<br />
People argue, it's what people do. Differences of opinion are one thing, being completely unreasonable is quite another. It's very hard being the voice of reason, especially when you find yourself in a minority.<br />
<br />
But I would remind everyone one of this:<br /><br /><span class="bqQuoteLink" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif !important; font-size: 20px; line-height: 26px;"><a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk377528.html" id="qt_377528" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #222222; outline-offset: -2px; outline: -webkit-focus-ring-color auto 5px; text-decoration: none;" title="view quote">The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.</a></span><br />
<div class="bq-aut" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 20px; margin-top: 6px;">
<a href="http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/e/edmundburk377528.html" id="qa_377528" style="background-color: transparent; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0000aa; text-decoration: none;" title="view quote">Edmund Burke</a></div>
<div class="bq-aut" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #333333; font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 20px; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="bq-aut" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 6px;">
When you see or hear shit-stirrers like me, or like my kids are fast becoming, making a big fuss over something, it's because we see harm. Injustice. Wrong. Stupidity. Ignorance. Cruelty. Selfishness. </div>
<div class="bq-aut" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 6px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="bq-aut" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; margin-top: 6px;">
The solution to all of this is education, and we therefore choose to educate. You won't shut us up. </div>
Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-12128024436328500262015-10-23T17:05:00.001-07:002015-10-24T07:14:55.071-07:00HymensHi :)<br />
<br />
So, getting down to the nitty gritty.........................<br />
<br />
All my kids are now over 19, and my grandchildren don't yet read my stuff.<br />
<br />
So.<br />
<br />
I was 13 when I "lost" my virginity. And I thoroughly enjoyed it.<br />
<br />
I didn't lose it down a drain or anything. What a STUPID word.<br />
<br />
His name was Lothar, he was German, and we were in a student exchange thing. I was on the pill and I really didn't care.<br />
<br />
OK?<br />
<br />
It was the 70s. It was Europe.<br />
<br />
<i>Grow up.</i><br />
<br />
At the time, it felt right. I wasn't coerced. He was fucking gorgeous. I was very, very ready.<br />
<br />
And do you know what he said afterwards?<br />
<br />
"Didn't that hurt?"<br />
<br />
No.<br />
<br />
"You are not a virgin."<br />
<br />
Meh.<br />
<br />
I have no idea why I had no hymen. MAYBE I WAS BORN THAT WAY.<br />
<br />
Maybe, being a tomboy, I had done enough rough outdoorsy stuff that I broke it on a stile (q.v.) or climbing a tree, or something. I don't know. I don't care.<br />
<br />
All I know is that "my first time" it was all pleasure, and no pain.<br />
<br />
OK?<br />
<br />
I also knew girls who did just about everything EXCEPT "real" sex. They had sucked lots of penises, oh yes. Some had taken it up the rear. But they were still VIRGINS, you see.<br />
<br />
What a load of bollocks.<br />
<br />
Some of these girls were "virgins" on their wedding nights, and along with those who had zero experience they suffered pain. Right. <i>Great way to end that day.</i><br />
<br />
Then....some of them discovered the man they married was f**king hopeless at sex. Some of them are still with that man. Some of them have still not had good sex.<br />
<br />
I tested my husband out. Are you ready for THIS?<br />
<br />
First night we dated. In my living room. As my mother slept above. And I thought, yeah, I can spend the rest of my life with this one. Right then and there.<br />
<br />
We married 11 months later. My advice to women? TESTDRIVE, girls.<br />
<br />
I apologize in advance if this post offends. I'm just trying to be honest.<br />
<br />
I accept there are other experiences. This is mine.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-28698816770695175252015-10-22T07:29:00.001-07:002015-10-22T07:58:44.459-07:00The Dilemma of the Feisty PeacenikI know I'm not alone in this, so let's look at the issue.<br />
<br />
On the one hand, my essence, my philosophy, my id, my basic nature is a smiling, calm, loving person who talks to butterflies. Om.<br />
<br />
On the other hand, I am very much "alive", not just living, and I am an extrovert who likes to swear and dance, and tell it like it is.<br />
<br />
These two conflict.<br />
<br />
When I yell instead of breathe slowly and deeply, when I carouse instead of meditate, I use the excuse, to myself, that at least I'm not grumpy. I'm not a negative person. I'm not an angry person.<br />
<br />
But I am a getting things done person, and I've never been any good at just letting the waters flow around me ALL of the time.<br />
<br />
Oh, I pick my battles, you'd better believe it. Raising a family taught me that. I do know when to just let it go.<br />
<br />
But when it matters, when I just can't be that Buddha, because things are going to go to shit if somebody doesn't do something, I will often wade in and be that person.<br />
<br />
AND......I am cool with the fact that I have a dual attitude, because it's normal, human, and probably a good thing. Too laid back and you're just lazy, actually.<br />
<br />
What I am not cool with is the expectations of others, who seem to think I can be, SHOULD BE, only one or the other. That is to say, my frustration is that I am damned for not being one-dimensional.<br />
<br />
It frustrates me because all around me I see people who are moody, capricious, unpredictable, and frankly unstable, but I have to fit neatly into THEIR pre-conceived ideas of me?<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
"I'm disappointed in you, I thought you were more sanguine than that."<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS3hNux1iIYtlrlK6kmqeIyyA5DtY6L-3IrnYX_0fl3OAdcwGljq3lDLhv22EHZwcJYajK_L1YgB186H_IoWFS3qKkDItrctE_jq44VHNVmm2_1zWdDLFOQ0zKTY3g4gcaNwWfHXOJpckI/s1600/grumpy+face.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjS3hNux1iIYtlrlK6kmqeIyyA5DtY6L-3IrnYX_0fl3OAdcwGljq3lDLhv22EHZwcJYajK_L1YgB186H_IoWFS3qKkDItrctE_jq44VHNVmm2_1zWdDLFOQ0zKTY3g4gcaNwWfHXOJpckI/s1600/grumpy+face.png" /></a><br />
<br />
The best part is, it's usually the pot calling the kettle black.<br />
<br />
The people <i><b>I</b></i> admire most are those who are mature to the point of gallant, but can also get the giggles.<br />
<br />
One or the other is not enough. She's fun, but that's all she is. There's no substance there. And she doesn't know when to stop. And if you need her to be reliable or wise, you're asking too much. He's a clever guy, and great to have around in a crisis, but he's as dull as ditchwater.<br />
<br />
We all agree the world needs all types of people, but we also need well-rounded combination people, right?<br />
<br />
Combining wise and funny is therefore seen as a good thing. I KNOW I'm not alone in valuing that.<br />
<br />
So why can't I be "chill" AND outspoken? Why am I expected to be one or the other?<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-16428554577865607332015-10-20T04:26:00.001-07:002015-10-20T16:08:17.253-07:00Caught In A Landslide, No Escape From RealityLess than 6 hours after going to bed here I am to write for you, such dedication. And why am I voluntarily short on my sleep? Well, at least in part because I stayed up for the election results. This morning, I'm sorry, but I have to write on politics. Yes. I try not to do it very often, but as the memes say, if you are bored with the realities of the world please go look at cat photos instead, with my blessing.<br />
<br />
.......and let the grown-ups consider the fact that it actually matters what goes on in government, because it affects all of us. No matter how little real power we have, as humble plebs, last night showed at least what happens when enough people say "enough of that".<br />
<br />
Firstly I want to say that while I'm very happy that Stephen Harper has gone, and while I am no conservative*, this isn't a party issue. I'm not sure it ever is, and I hate party politics anyway, but this wasn't a Liberal victory, it was a Conservative defeat. I'm sure you'll see many others say that, but I'm up early so I get in first.<br />
<br />
I am not a raving Trudeau fan. I shall be watching him very carefully, and if he steps out of line I will be one of the first people complaining. I don't trust him any more than any of the others. All politicians have the potential to tell lies, get involved in corruption, do stupid things, and pander to the elite rather than the masses. I don't like it, I wish it were otherwise, but I'm too old to believe in honest politicians. We just hope that some are better than others.<br />
<br />
At least it's not quite as bad in Canada, as our neighbours to the south, whose politicians are simply bought by billionaires. We should be grateful for small mercies. And I'll just briefly say I hope they get Bernie in power. That would be very interesting to see.<br />
<br />
But Harper had to go, he was doing too much damage, he was not representing the people he served, and when you forget why you are a leader in that way, your time is up. He forgot. He lost the plot, as they say. He started out ineffective and gradually became worse. Canada can run itself with very little input from leaders, it's set up that way. He started tinkering under the hood and it stopped running so well.<br />
<br />
Then recently we saw his disdain for the environment, minorities, the vulnerable in general, and we said no. Stop that.<br />
<br />
There are no guarantees that Trudeau will be any better, but we had to take that chance. We have to hope that his ego, his desire to be seen to do well, will help him try, at least. He knows, surely, that he is under the spotlight, he has to fill his father's shoes, apart from anything else.<br />
<br />
I don't think it's an easy job, running a country. It's like being a mother, only there are millions of children, and they never sleep. And they squabble among themselves, and it's impossible to please them all. Therefore, as a mother, here is my advice on how to run a country.<br />
<br />
First, you need a distant goal. The objective is that you are trying to raise a bunch of healthy, successful, and good kids. Even though you'll get no thanks for it until way into the future, you must set in place things now that are going to help later on. Just as a mother helps in every possible way to teach her children lifeskills, a government must invest in education, including kindergarten and even daycare where need be. Just as a mother tries to keep her kids healthy, a government must invest in public health, in all its manifestations from meat inspectors to keeping prices sensible on pharmaceuticals. Just as a mother tries to keep her kids out of mischief, a government must have laws that make sense and actually prevent crime as well as a system that deals with it effectively when things go wrong.<br />
<br />
If you have a solid basis, like a functional home, the kids - the people - will thrive. When you see a government actively <b>thwarting</b> the efforts of the ordinary people to "get on well" you know something has gone awry. The government are forgetting what they are there to do. When you are caring for a very large family, you can't mollycoddle a few favourites and let the others wander out into traffic. You have to set things up so that everyone is taken care of, for the things that matter.<br />
<br />
At the same time kids need freedom to develop into functional adults. They don't need helicopter parents. While you need a certain amount of discipline, you don't help things by watching over and interfering in everything they do. It's a balance.<br />
<br />
And the nitty gritty, you don't let your kids go out in the cold without a coat on. You may not be wealthy parents, but you get your priorities straight, and you don't have a bunch of kids with no shoes just so one of the others can have designer shoes. You share it out. Why would you do anything else? If they don't share among themselves, you step in.<br />
<br />
That's what you are there for. Don't forget. I'll be watching you Mr Trudeau.<br />
<br />
And now, because it's my blog, and can say whatever I damn well please.....<br />
<br />
<br />
Ner ner ner ner ner, we have the CUTEST leader ON THE PLANET. Bar none.<br />
<br />
Meh, I know, but there it is.<br />
<br />
<br />
*I have no party affiliation. I'm broadly socialist in ideals, occasionally conservative in crime and punishment, but essentially anarchistic, although I don't think you lot are ready to take care of yourselves. You still need parental government. And you get what you need.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-27809929901290897942015-10-19T14:59:00.000-07:002015-10-19T17:22:53.731-07:00Sex For Women.Among all the nonsense about women, and covering them up, and so on, is the tacit idea that women aren't supposed to enjoy sex.<br />
<br />
Well, bollocks to that.<br />
<br />
We do.<br />
<br />
<b>If the woman is your life doesn't, that's your problem, OK? Do it better.</b><br />
<br />
<i>I have been married 35 years and I have no complaints. </i><br />
<br />
But apparently we have two choices. Either we have to be willing to do it on demand, or not at all. Really?<br />
<br />
If you look at ALL of the nonsense spouted by all of those with a vested interest in women's sexuality (except, you know, the women concerned) those are the options.<br />
<br />
Rape within marriage has only recently become a crime. It's still awfully hard to prove.<br />
<br />
Is is still impossible in some places for a prostitute to get authorities to take her rape clams seriously, even if she is off duty, and the rapist is actually unaware of her profession.<br />
<br />
We are not supposed to just have sex when we want to. All or nothing.<br />
<br />
Now, why is this?<br />
<br />
Well, on the sexual freedom side, I've heard some interesting theories, including some from well-meaning women. One is that a woman has more to lose than a man, be it her virginity or her reputation. PLUS, the risk of pregnancy.<br />
<br />
There is certainly some truth in this. Thanks to tradition and the associated brainwashing by the patriarchy (yes, strong words) there is still this idea that it's OK for a man to "sow his wild oats", you know. To be a bit of a lad. Nudge nudge. Ha ha. While the woman who does the exact same thing is "sleeping around", which is not seen as a good thing.<br />
<br />
No matter how much this is known in the modern world we still hear it all the time. It's OK for a man to behave like that, but not a woman.<br />
<br />
I've even seen theories than this is a libido thing, men naturally have this insatiable appetite for sex, women don't. And if they do, well....that's DISGUSTING. You've heard it.<br />
<br />
And so, she is less promiscuous, or even <b>chaste</b>, to avoid getting a reputation of not being chaste. That is to say the reasoning behind being chaste, is to avoid being thought of as not chaste. Because not chaste is bad, BECAUSE....it's not chaste. Help me get out of this loop of circular reasoning please?<br />
<br />
Oh, yes, that's right, because if she's not chaste then obviously she MUST be the opposite, which means she's openly offering it to anyone, all the time, no exceptions. She's gagging for it. She's a whore. There are only these two possible states of mind. The nun and the whore. There couldn't possibly be anything else, like maybe, a person who enjoys sex on her schedule?<br />
<br />
That is how society works, still. There are a lot of people who see the complete absurdity here but not enough, and until we get past this we are always going to have problems.<br />
<br />
So.<br />
<br />
Her virginity/reputation is valuable because <i>other people</i> decide it is.<br />
<br />
Pregancy can usually be avoided. Contraception these days is fairly good, but it's not perfect. Still, there is abortion available when things go wrong. Some people are anti-abortion, but some of them can be persuaded that a really early abortion is OK, such as the morning-after pill. So women have that option in many places.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately there are a certain number of people, mostly men, but not all, who oppose BOTH abortion (however early) AND contraception, of any kind. They have decided that sex is only for making babies. Even the less extreme ones preach abstinence.<br />
<br />
Well, for women that is. Many, many of the men who feel this way have no problem being promiscuous themselves. It's a classic double-standard, nothing new, nothing surprising, but it remains. They are effectively opposed to women enjoying sex, because that's what it amounts to. If a woman is only able to have sex knowing that a risk of pregnancy is always going to be part of the deal, that takes away her options, her freedom.<br />
<br />
The thinking behind this in many cultures and individuals is that it keeps her at home, out of the job market, out of the decision making processes, out of the way.<br />
<br />
But there's something else.<br />
<br />
There's fear. Remember? Fear of the power of women? If you let them have sex without risk, if they stop worrying about chastity, if in fact they start behaving like men, they might take over!<br />
<br />
Good grief. What a thought.<br />
<br />
I'm not for that. I don't want anybody taking over. I like democracy, a power balance, a variety of ideas. I like having everyone involved in decision making, not just one gender or one ideaology.<br />
<br />
I'm into freedom. I fail to see why I need to be chaste to be respected. But because I'm married, it's OK. The only time busybodies ever mentioned my sex life was when I had my second child quickly after the first ("Haven't found out what's causing it yet,, eh? HA HA HA HA") or when they found out I had 6 children ("Can't leave him alone, eh? HA HA HA HA"). No, really I haven't had to explain myself too much. I was even married three whole years before having a child. Yay me.<br />
<br />
But no.<br />
<br />
It's OK.......<br />
<br />
I'm just making this all up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBNJ2Qr4S7k-I72fDwB0p_Dgwj3dkg-vcDeBDDSIali1gKtAB4Pu5gAv73AAruW3tN1x5Iweybycjn7p7SFe852n0zeKTTVqIt5cDuXpn5p5ffVcqG1mLY2wU-zBIbowBNqbK5YlO106oF/s1600/sex.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBNJ2Qr4S7k-I72fDwB0p_Dgwj3dkg-vcDeBDDSIali1gKtAB4Pu5gAv73AAruW3tN1x5Iweybycjn7p7SFe852n0zeKTTVqIt5cDuXpn5p5ffVcqG1mLY2wU-zBIbowBNqbK5YlO106oF/s320/sex.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-56206171783209244442015-10-17T07:15:00.001-07:002015-10-17T07:50:56.102-07:00Complete and Utter BollocksI love social media. LOVE IT LOVE IT LOVE IT. I love people too. I really do, no matter how annoying they are. At least if nothing else they can provide entertainment and....blog inspiration.<br />
<br />
Some people are brighter than others. Some are so dim you get this urge to switch the lights on. Some just.....<br />
<br />
OK. So there are facts, and there are opinions. And there are people who confuse the two (HOW?). But there is a special phenomenon that we English call bollocks. A useful word, the dictionary offers the following:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bollocks">http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bollocks</a><br />
<br />
Which includes:<br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #2c353c; font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Roboto, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 22.4px;">3. Exaggerated truth or blatant lies. </span><br />
<br />
But to me, it isn't just nonsense. It is when a person states something that is not only stupid, but can be <b>EASILY</b> demonstrated to be so, and yet they say it as if it were objective, proven fact. THEN they get offended when you call them out on it. Like nobody ever factchecks, or knows how to Google, or whatever.<br />
<br />
So, while it's easy to use the word bollocks to refer to anything you disagree with, I prefer to save it for such occasions. If I say you are talking bollocks, I am not simply saying that I disagree with you, OK?<br />
<br />
I'm saying "Are you crazy? Because I can easily prove you completely wrong, if I can be bothered to do so."<br />
<br />
And this is important. Because quite often it's not worth the effort. This will not be a debate. Or even an argument. It will result in the bollocks-talker having such a fine, well-thought out rebuttal as:<br />
<br />
"Well, that's what I believe anyway."<br />
<br />
OR<br />
<br />
"My personal experience is more important than your data."<br />
<br />
OR<br />
<br />
"You don't know me."<br />
<br />
I think the latter is my favourite, because it is emotional drivel. I try not to judge people that I don't know well, based on short exchanges, but if I hear "you don't know me" I am immediately 100% certain that I don't want to.<br />
<br />
But let's look at option #2 there.<br />
<br />
Yesterday I found myself face to face on Facebook with a lady who was claiming to have had avian flu 4 times. As there have only ever been 2 cases total in Canada, that's quite the claim. And both of those were, as you might expect, reported in the media, and they weren't her. She claimed many other things that were also complete <b><i>fantasy</i></b>, and when given proof (data) of her mistaken.....um....opinions, her reaction was to take offence and then bugger off. Which is standard in such matters.<br />
<br />
She's a lovely example of this phenomenon, but hardly alone.<br />
<br />
Who does it remind you of?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/07/media-matters-oreilly-killing-truth-e-book_n_7019488.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/07/media-matters-oreilly-killing-truth-e-book_n_7019488.html</a><br />
<br />
There is a recognized mental disorder, where otherwise quite normal people (can function fully in society, hold responsible jobs etc) can't stop telling lies. They invent stories to make themselves look brave, clever, or to act as credentials for their views. It's not quite Forest Gump material, but it is sometimes....borderline.<br />
<br />
Some years ago, I frequented a Yahoo chatroom of regulars, and met some very nice people (and some utterly horrible people, but it was educational just the same), and one of my "friends" there, eventually anyway, was a young man who claimed to be an angel.<br />
<br />
So I called bollocks on him, and I wavered between treating it as a running joke, wondering if he was completely delusional, and trying to demonstrate why he couldn't be. That's my failing, I try to bring logic into everything.<br />
<br />
With him, because he was harmless enough (really very nice actually, I wish we hadn't lost touch) after a while I just let it go. OK, you identify as an angel? Whatever. I treated him in the same way I treat my transsexual friends. i.e. you are who you feel you are. We're cool. I didn't tease, and I stuck up for him. BUT...at no point did I ever believe him (unlike my transsexual friends), because saying you are an angel is bollocks.<br />
<br />
I mention this case because sometimes you can ignore bollocks.<br />
<br />
Bollocks isn't an opinion. I mean......I could say that it's the criteria used when we decide how much religious belief we don't share, but can tolerate. But much of that cannot be proven either way. That's why it's called belief, and belief is just glorified opinion. Even if you call bollocks on many religious beliefs, you can't actually prove them wrong, such is the nature of the thing. This is why religious tolerance is a separate category.<br />
<br />
With bollocks you COULD insist that the bollocks-talker stop talking bollocks. Simply on the basis on it being an untruth. You could present them with the data, and show how it isn't opinion they are spouting. You could say "everyone is entitled to an opinion, but you are just plain wrong" - but unfortunately statements like that are made so often that they have become meaningless.<br />
<br />
When we debate we often swing back and forth between opinions and facts, and without some sort of signal as to which is which a person could get quite lost, but in informal discussion it doesn't really matter because those who contradict you will do so regardless.<br />
<br />
That's normal. We cope. We don't usually feel the need to say "opinion" or "fact" after every statement we make.<br />
<br />
But now and again a claim is made that is just so outrageous, it's different. It stands out.<br />
<br />
"The earth is flat."<br />
<br />
"There was no holocaust."<br />
<br />
"Aliens built it."<br />
<br />
"Lizard men run the planet,"<br />
<br />
"Elvis is still alive."<br />
<br />
Some even catch on, that is to say, they get shared.<br />
<br />
This is not new of course - throughout history there has been wild folklore that looks silly now, but at the time it was accepted, because nobody could really prove otherwise. You either believed it or you didn't. Some of it became religious doctrine, and it became dangerous bollocks. These days we have conspiracy theories and other bollocks, but we can relax because far cleverer people than ourselves have done the work and made the rebuttals.<br />
<br />
We don't even have to waste our time with people whose minds were so open they fell out.<br />
<br />
Until we do. Until they walk into our lives, and then, well, then we have to decide how to deal with it.<br />
<br />
I try, at first at least, not to be rude. Be kind rather than right. It's a good way to live. Sometimes though, I see a risk. There may be others who could take it verbatim. Maybe the young, the credulous, the compromised. If the bollocks is dangerous, there's a strong chance I'll say "Now, wait a minute. You are entitled to your opinion, but I have to call you on this one." Sometimes your objection will be called rude. Sometimes it will be mocked. So before you begin, you have to be ready for objection to the objection.<br />
<br />
I've learned not to wade in too fast. I've learned to let it go unless I see real harm being done.<br />
<br />
There is not one damn person alive who is right all of the time. Impossible. And there is nobody who is completely logical, even. We are not Spock, we can't do it. For a start we fall in love, and we are prone to other emotions. And preferences. Preferences are often not logical, and sometimes quite solid.<br />
<br />
And (thankfully) we change our minds. We get new data, we have new experiences.<br />
<br />
But some things really are just bollocks. Unsubstantiated drivel. Balderdash. Claptrap. Garbage. Rot. Ordure. And lots of other synonyms for manure, which are all a weird choice considering how useful manure is, but there we go.<br />
<br />
Know what else we hate doing? Calling somebody a liar. This suggests something wilful, and it's a strong word. We'll say it about someone, but rarely to their faces. We were brought up to be more tactful than that. So we say "I think you are mstaken" instead. The way a person reacts to that is your clue. If it's bollocks they will resort to argument rather than debate (oh yes, there is a difference). If they are wise they will go and look it up for themselves. That's all you were ever asking anyway. Check your facts.<br />
<br />
Sometimes we are all wrong, be it fact or opinion. Yes, an opinion can be wrong, that's a topic for another day, but it can happen. But there is no excuse for talking bollocks. It may be from laziness, it may be psychopathic, it may be with a malicious intent. It may just be stupidity. We dn't have to sink to their level of lack of thought, and it's better to temper critical thought with kindness (in my humble opinion, which I'll defend to the end!). Just once in a while, it has to be done.Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-10341965085548973182015-10-16T07:26:00.001-07:002015-10-28T03:35:34.992-07:00PowerI've been writing this week about an issue that isn't the issue. Ever since Stephen Harper decided he'd make a big deal out of the niqab in the run up to the election, to convince women he was all about women's rights, the topic that won't go away has arisen again. I believe that the power over, and manipulation of women is at the root of it all, whether those in power try to get them covered OR uncovered. The desire for the welfare of the woman may in <i>some</i> cases be sincere, but then it is misplaced, based on mistaken ideas. Her real needs are never taken into account all the time she doesn't get to choose, either way.<br />
<br />
Men have long held power over women, but in the last century they have seen that gradually slipping away. Some men are intelligent enough to see that this is actually not a problem. That women with equal rights, and therefore equal educations, are perfectly good themselves in positions of power. Except.........<br />
<br />
There are those who still fear the power of women, and I know why.<br />
<br />
They dread our revenge.<br />
<br />
I know this because I've asked. I managed to find men who were honest enough to say that intellectually they know equal rights are fair and sensible, but they're actually scared women will treat them the way that, traditionally men treated women. And still do.<br />
<br />
<b>"I have nothing against women but I don't want them <i>taking over</i>. That's scary."</b><br />
<br />
I found them in all ages, all around the world. I've been asking the questions for years, and to my surprise, in most cases I was the first person to ask it.<br />
<br />
We don't ask the right questions, most of the time. But if you ask a person what they are afraid of you get better answers because fear, not logic, not ethics, is at the bottom of most people's rationale.<br />
<br />
Men are afraid that we will take away their choices, take away their freedoms. Take away their power. It doesn't matter how much we say "No, we just want equality, not superiority" they still fear losing power. Even men who feel powerless already fear more assaults on the culture that may just allow them some.<br />
<br />
You hear it every time feminism is talked about. They say openly "I'm not against feminism, I'm against man-haters." Because they know what women-haters do, and that's scary.<br />
<br />
In some daft way, I'm sympathetic. I love men and the last thing I want to do is make them feel helpless and impotent. That's a bad feeling. Plus, I really despise tit for tat, it's childish. "Ha! Now you know how it feels!" Effective, maybe, but not what sensible people do.<br />
<br />
Sometimes I am able to find ways to explain things that allow men to think from another perspective, to help them understand how the system, even here in the west, is biased towards men. When you are in the position of privilege it can be difficult if not downright impossible to think outside that box.<br />
<br />
One advantage of modern social media is that men and women are able to easily form platonic friendships and really TALK. I've always had male friends, but to talk in such depth as I do with male friends online, would have be be difficult in person, just from time restraints and geography.<br />
<br />
Not only that, men are able to to talk to one another about these topics without the fears they might have of being overheard in the pub.<br />
<br />
And ideas that people have, that they create as wonderful succinct quotes or "memes" get shared around and can be pretty powerful.<br />
<br />
In all ways, it's becoming easier all the time.<br />
<br />
Hence the backlash.<br />
<br />
Those men who cling to inequality and power, and see any loss thereto as an attack on their manliness don't like what they are seeing. They are trying to wrest some power back.<br />
<br />
This always happens, when change happens too fast for some (bearing in mind we are talking 100 years give or take since women got the vote in most places). Despite decades of it being quite normal for women to work outside the home, the men haven't really adjusted, so they still pay female employees less if they think they can get away with it. They still expect female office staff to clean the kitchen, and never do it themselves. They still have unequal dress codes and expectations. No, we have a long way to go.<br />
<br />
Because of fear. They admit this if you question them. Their objections are all what ifs. None of them make sense. Fear is irrational.<br />
<br />
The exact same situation can be found in the racist mindset. Again, you can get them to admit it. Just ask the right questions and it all comes tumbling out.<br />
<br />
<b>"I have nothing against non-white people but I don't want them <i>taking over</i>. That's scary."</b><br />
<br />
Loss of power is a real fear. Let's not pretend otherwise.<br />
<br />
And so they resort to name-calling. Treat her as "lesser". Insult her no matter what she does. You know how it goes. If the male boss comes on to her and gets rejected, she's frigid, she's no fun, she's the ice queen. But if she thinks "well, this could be to my advantage", then she's just sleeping her way to the top. In other words if she behaves like a man.<br />
<br />
Ah yes, slut-shaming. We'll do that one tomorrow.<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7196829553153577775.post-24952827913680050002015-10-15T11:07:00.003-07:002015-10-15T11:13:40.484-07:00The Covering Issue, Part 3There are still people out there who don't know this so for the sake of completeness, here's what is actually in the Quran.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html">http://www.quran-islam.org/articles/women_dress_code_(P1150).html</a><br />
<br />
You can argue until the cows come home, that's the top and bottom of it.<br />
<br />
But does it even matter? Once a tradition is in place, even if quite localized, it becomes a sort of norm, and humans, being lazy, tend to accept norms.<br />
<br />
We get the best clues from places where the norm changes suddenly. These sudden changes are always reversions. No culture progresses overnight. All progressive change is slow (despite what opponents say). But reversions, especially where threats are involved, tend to be very swift.<br />
<br />
Consequently, in places where a religious revolution has occurred, and modern clothing is suddenly banned, there will be a couple of generations where memories of life before the ban remain.<br />
<br />
Imagine, for example, living in Afghanistan in the early 70s.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2JM8SzUIzxQbEDiMY6qInMMl229Gl3sNGz1MjTpCmMkWYSiYwgivIWfuTp7ncNYzazNvvDNe8u5i-dNtnh8OLSx0uZuMIQFkVrHmlESr7XuxKRN90vjKsKCwcqyCuCWwiqr00LxdApvrg/s1600/548x331_afghan_women_1970s_via_twitter.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="193" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2JM8SzUIzxQbEDiMY6qInMMl229Gl3sNGz1MjTpCmMkWYSiYwgivIWfuTp7ncNYzazNvvDNe8u5i-dNtnh8OLSx0uZuMIQFkVrHmlESr7XuxKRN90vjKsKCwcqyCuCWwiqr00LxdApvrg/s320/548x331_afghan_women_1970s_via_twitter.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
It took no time at all for this to be replaced by strict Islamic clothing. Young women at the time had no choice in the matter. Many women alive today remember wearing whatever they wanted when they were young. They have adjusted, as people do, but their feeling towards it is going to be different to their daughters who never knew that freedom. Their daughters may be <i>utterly terrified</i> of the idea of a mini skirt.<br />
<br />
If you want to know how women feel about covering themselves, at whatever level, you have to ask them. Very privately, so they can speak freely. You can't assume anything. You will hear different views, some ultra-conservative, and some completely the opposite. A wide range, and no obvious pattern. There are plenty such interviews on You Tube if you want to see them. But the point is that there is no consensus. I have learned to ignore sweeping generalizations that "they are all perfectly happy", or "they know it's right", or "they are all forced into it", or whatever, because it's just not that simple.<br />
<br />
There is familiarity, which leads to comfort.<br />
There is resignation.<br />
There is subtle cultural pressure.<br />
There is the law.<br />
<br />
In all cases what is forgotten is choice. Every single time.<br />
<br />
Those poor Muslim women.<br />
<br />
<br />
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA<br />
<br />
What, you think this is something restricted to Muslim countries or individuals?<br />
<br />
No. And this is where I came in.<br />
<br />
Admittedly having had a schoolfriend enter into a traditional Muslim marriage glowing with happiness helped me to be open-minded. And that stuck. But it's so easy to see (if you look) that the parallels in the west are just a matter of degree. And it's all a matter of degree.<br />
<br />
I watched an interview with a a middle-eastern man who said that even a fully veiled woman can be a slut, because if she wears enough eyeliner it shows through the veil. And he said she was doing this deliberately to allure men. He couldn't see how ridiculous his projection was, even when some of his peers said he was going too far. The problem, therefore isn't the degree, from a veil to a string bikini. It's all about person A being convinced he can tell the intent of person B.<br />
<br />
If I said I could read your mind, you'd say I was crazy. But this is no different.<br />
<br />
This is the gist of the entire problem.<br />
<br />
A man decides (based on what? Being rejected in the past? His own fantasies? Sheer delusion?) that THAT woman there is trying to turn him on. He is so determined to blame HER for HIS feelings, that he'll go so far as to insist on no eyeliner under a veil.<br />
<br />
"They're all whores! They're all asking for it! They're all the same!"<br />
<br />
Some of them, when questioned, have some sort of trauma in their past that gets them to that point. If you've ever read any of the Jack the Ripper novels, a number of them are sympathetic to Jack, and give him an experience that led him to what he did.<br />
<br />
Any psychologist knows how this works. There are all sorts of ways it can happen, too, but the end result is the same. All women are evil jezebels and harming ANY woman works as revenge.<br />
<br />
We know it's crazy, we don't accept it as an excuse, and every time it crops up in the media the overwhelming opinion is that he's wrong, he's crazy, he needs to be put away, and well....thankfully he's rare. And #NotAllMen too.<br />
<br />
But there are those who just listen. They get persuaded by the idea that all women are weak/sluts/evil or whatever. OR.... all except their own. They're different. They're saints. Jimmy Saville called his mother the duchess and never married because no woman could reach that level of perfection. But he thought nothing of raping his own nieces. I guarantee inside his head they were just asking for it.<br />
<br />
And some of the men he hung out with looked up to him, and thought he made sense.<br />
<br />
And then there were men who looked up to <i>them</i>.<br />
<br />
And even those who never had any slimebag hero somehow got caught up in a general machismo. It's in the media, the arts, Hollywood, cheap cowboy novels, locker room humour, and our language.<br />
<br />
<b>No, NotAllMen. Not even most. <i>But just enough. </i></b><br />
<br />
If I had a penny for every time I heard a man say that he just "knew what she was really like" I could buy myself a huge bucket to vomit in, because this entire concept nauseates me.<br />
<br />
And the solution? Hide them. Cover them up. By degree. Veil. Eyeslits. Headscarf. Loose tops with long sleeves and high necks. No upper arms. Wide shoulder straps. Hide the nipples.<br />
<br />
Or this:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.today.com/style/kentucky-student-violates-high-school-dress-code-exposed-collarbone-t39211">http://www.today.com/style/kentucky-student-violates-high-school-dress-code-exposed-collarbone-t39211</a><br />
<u><br /></u>
By degree only.<br />
<br />
"It was distracting the boys."<br />
<br />
This is the EXACT same thing as veiling a woman, because the reasoning behind it is identical.<br />
<br />
And in both cases, if she doesn't comply, and is sexually assaulted, she'll be blamed. And if she complies and is assaulted she'll be blamed anyway.<br />
<br />
It isn't the clothing that's the problem. OK? It never was.<br />
<br />
It is the attitude of others, about the clothing.<br />
<br />
Veiled women are assaulted. Fact.<br />
<br />
But what do we have, after all this time?<br />
<br />
Dress codes. Laws about clothing.<br />
<br />
Let's try one. You are running a resort, and while you want to allow swimming, sunbathing etc. you don't want actual nudity, for whatever reason. So you have to come up with a simple dress code. And then enforce it.<br />
<br />
<b>"Cover your breasts and your pubic area."</b><br />
<br />
Sounds reasonable. And then this lady shows up.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwo9pYMSuPqVnw4K9nKSOpQFD-kU3JdLS9K_pjScnIujdO0gip1gEta3fXnOopFo78KcOyiMtZkSabOenzMOBh3vXXN0aI-PU0qNFna2FoUWXhQ-r2Zcrn8WoiJxgYFnBJXBPLKoC9f9n1/s1600/clothing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwo9pYMSuPqVnw4K9nKSOpQFD-kU3JdLS9K_pjScnIujdO0gip1gEta3fXnOopFo78KcOyiMtZkSabOenzMOBh3vXXN0aI-PU0qNFna2FoUWXhQ-r2Zcrn8WoiJxgYFnBJXBPLKoC9f9n1/s640/clothing.jpg" width="360" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
Would you <i><b>allow</b></i> her to dress this way?<br />
<br />
Thought not. She's actually well-covered compared to some swimwear. Is it her age? What's the problem?<br />
<br />
Ah, you say, she's just trying to make a point, she's actually being provocative.<br />
<br />
And there we go again. Reading people's minds. Crazy.<br />
<br />
"I insist she wears a regular bikini."<br />
<br />
<b>That's LESS clothing.</b> How do you know she's not uncomfortable showing her lower legs? The reason is irrelevant too. None of your damned business.<br />
<br />
"But I make the rules."<br />
<br />
That's what they all say. That's what women have dealt with for soooooo long. Put this on, take this off. That's not enough, that's too much. We are all heartily sick of it.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Melanie Boxallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07123851168700589156noreply@blogger.com2