Monday, 22 April 2013
Girls 6 - To Sum Up
So what is a girl?
Well, according to the etymology of the word woman, she's just like a man, only with a womb. And that's exactly how she should be treated.
Don't like that idea? Got a better one?
There's a new book on the market:
http://www.amazon.com/Redefining-Girly-Stereotyping-Sexualizing-Girlhood/dp/1613745524
When you raise a girl, you are actually raising a human being. Except she just happens to be female. It's a 50-50 chance your child will be female, after all.
My family is living walking proof that you do not need to raise kids differently according to gender, and that they will turn out just fine as a result. My girls are good mothers. They were not harmed in any way by not being treated differently to their brothers.
We have to get past this idea that there is a need for gender-specific upbringing. Yes, I know some people appear to take it to an extreme, with exclusively gender neutral clothing/names/toys, but they do less harm than those who decide "My daughter needs to be a Princess".
I'm so done with the whole Princess thing.
Yes, I've heard the support for it, I have. There is nothing you can say here that will make me say "Oh dear, I was wrong" so don't waste your time. I know some girls like it (even despite their parents hating it!), I know you can do the whole "Princesses are strong, just look at the Super Mario one". I have heard all the exceptions, and they are not relevant. I know I'm seen as a party pooper on a number of these issues. Trust me, after all this time, an entire lifetime, in fact, of believing in gender equality, I've heard it all. It's just more indulgence, is all it is.
Suddenly, the rest of the world has woken up....some of us have been trying to explain it for years. If you raise your kids differently, it will have effects. Some of these are undesired effects.
Also, don't bother telling me that men and women "really are different". I know. I am not clueless about biology. But some - possibly many - of these alleged differences are absolutely not biology, they are 100% cultural.
100 years ago it was still believed that people of non-white races were different, less able, in fact, due to biology.
It is vital that girls are raised understanding that they are not lesser than men. That they are not defined by men. That, with the possible exception of lifting/pulling exceptionally heavy things, they can do all the same things men can. And there is technology for the heavy stuff. A person is not lesser for being unable to move a piano, any more than a man is lesser for being able to bear a child. The whole idea of lesser is one that the human race can do without altogether, it certainly doesn't need to apply it to 50% of the population.
But the fact is, the hard truth is that women are just as guilty of proliferating the idea of lesser as men are. Possibly more so. Most of the time it is not intended that way, it is through ignorance. Well, the word is out. Nobody can miss the latest wave of feminism.
ONE more blog
Well, according to the etymology of the word woman, she's just like a man, only with a womb. And that's exactly how she should be treated.
Don't like that idea? Got a better one?
There's a new book on the market:
When you raise a girl, you are actually raising a human being. Except she just happens to be female. It's a 50-50 chance your child will be female, after all.
My family is living walking proof that you do not need to raise kids differently according to gender, and that they will turn out just fine as a result. My girls are good mothers. They were not harmed in any way by not being treated differently to their brothers.
We have to get past this idea that there is a need for gender-specific upbringing. Yes, I know some people appear to take it to an extreme, with exclusively gender neutral clothing/names/toys, but they do less harm than those who decide "My daughter needs to be a Princess".
I'm so done with the whole Princess thing.
Yes, I've heard the support for it, I have. There is nothing you can say here that will make me say "Oh dear, I was wrong" so don't waste your time. I know some girls like it (even despite their parents hating it!), I know you can do the whole "Princesses are strong, just look at the Super Mario one". I have heard all the exceptions, and they are not relevant. I know I'm seen as a party pooper on a number of these issues. Trust me, after all this time, an entire lifetime, in fact, of believing in gender equality, I've heard it all. It's just more indulgence, is all it is.
Suddenly, the rest of the world has woken up....some of us have been trying to explain it for years. If you raise your kids differently, it will have effects. Some of these are undesired effects.
Also, don't bother telling me that men and women "really are different". I know. I am not clueless about biology. But some - possibly many - of these alleged differences are absolutely not biology, they are 100% cultural.
100 years ago it was still believed that people of non-white races were different, less able, in fact, due to biology.
It is vital that girls are raised understanding that they are not lesser than men. That they are not defined by men. That, with the possible exception of lifting/pulling exceptionally heavy things, they can do all the same things men can. And there is technology for the heavy stuff. A person is not lesser for being unable to move a piano, any more than a man is lesser for being able to bear a child. The whole idea of lesser is one that the human race can do without altogether, it certainly doesn't need to apply it to 50% of the population.
But the fact is, the hard truth is that women are just as guilty of proliferating the idea of lesser as men are. Possibly more so. Most of the time it is not intended that way, it is through ignorance. Well, the word is out. Nobody can miss the latest wave of feminism.
ONE more blog
Monday, 15 April 2013
All Is Vanity
In all the discussions I've been involved in lately about women and clothes, I have been repeatedly asked a rather funny question, but I suppose I'm not greatly surprised. In fact, the question proved the point I was trying to make. The question was "So, just how should a woman present herself?"
This is not necessarily coming from those confused about what constitutes "appropriate" clothing, but more from those trying to object to criticisms of their choices, and getting defensive when the question of "what my clothes say about me" comes up.
There are two things going on. Both are lies.
The first thing, as I said, is "I wear whatever I please". Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
If it were true, women would not be agonizing over what to wear. If one truly dresses to please oneself, all decisions are easy. More of a "green or blue today?" decision.
Even when that is possible (and it isn't always, but I'll come back to that), it is incredibly rare for a woman to ignore outside influences on her choice of clothing. She has been conditioned from birth to worry about what other people think of the way she looks. Even if it has been done in the kindest and best-intentioned ways. Every time you tell a girl "you look pretty in that" she also hears "but not in that". Every time, in fact, you tell her that she is pretty, you are saying "therefore you are better than if you were not pretty". And many, many more messages like that.
There is nothing wrong with beauty. We do not wish to live in an ugly world. Which of these pictures do you prefer?
These are both images from Kenya. Ask yourself, is Kenya ugly or beautiful?
Many things we do every day involve aesthetic choices. We choose the more attractive (to us) of two or more things. Many things can be more or less visually appealing, including food, even the packaging of a food product. It is natural, and even good to seek beauty.
So, no, there is nothing wrong, on a personal basis, with trying to be more beautiful. The question remains, beautiful to whom? When you look in the mirror, are you thinking "yes, I like that on me", or are you thinking "yes, the world will like that on me"? It might be harder to answer than you think.
I hear many intelligent people go on at length about how they dress to please themselves, and they are lying through their teeth. Because if you catch them off-guard, you will hear them say "Oh no, I couldn't wear that". But you like it. "Yes, but I couldn't wear it".
The honesty of it all is too much for most people actually. It requires them to admit their doubts, their self-esteem issues, their deepest fears. There are very, very few people who honestly, truthfully wear what they please.
For most of us it's situational. There are occasions when there are certain expectations, and we follow them almost as a point of etiquette. There are extremes we won't push, because it might cause more offence than is acceptable, or worth it. Decisions, decisions.
As I have got older, my decisions on what to wear so as not to disturb the peace, have changed. But then so has society.When I was young, the expectations were different, so any rebellion I chose was different. This is an ever-changing thing.
What doesn't change is the need to question it all, and the need for questioners. Because if we had never had rebels, we'd still dress like this:
It doesn't matter if you like it or not, you had no choice, and that included a hot day in August. You couldn't slip into a strappy little top, and a pair of capris. Not only did fashion have to change, attitudes did. Attitudes are led by rebels.
Rebels lead, but they get misunderstood. In fact the rebellion is misunderstood. The entire women's movement went off the rails. It began trying to get women the right to go out to work, and has led to women being expected to go out to work.
The whole point of rebellion is to create choice, not just new expectations. This always gets forgotten.
So, between expectations, and sub-conscious aversion, we generally, and at the very least not always, do not wear what we please.
The 2nd lie is that beauty is more about a person's personality and character. That only applies if you are blind. We all appreciate a good-looking thing, be it a human being, a horse, a car or a sunset. So why do we need to try to convince ourselves otherwise?
Of course a person's personality and character is more important. Yes, without question, I would rather be with kind, honest, fun people than "pretty" people any time at all. I do not choose my friends based on how they look, and if I were that shallow, I wouldn't deserve friends at all. And most of us prefer "interesting" over "classical beauty" any day of the week, if we think about it. Artists just love wrinkly old people. Most of us prefer old things to new things, much of the time, when it comes to looks, actually. We lavish praise on "weathered" buildings. Choose "distressed" furniture. Enjoy the "patina" of antique metals, and so on.
Which brings me to something I think is where we all go wrong when we are considering what is attractive.
Beauty is good, perfection is not. Quite apart from the impossibility of defining what is perfect, if it were achievable it would be BORING. We may describe something as perfect, but all we are saying is simply that we like it the way it is. If there was, for example, such a thing as perfect car, we'd all have the same one, and they wouldn't bother making any other type. Tastes vary. Sometimes certain things are more popular than others, in a contest, my guess is that roses would win out over dandelions, but that doesn't mean roses are a perfect flower.
When we seek beauty, we often make the huge mistake of seeking perfection. Perfection isn't beauty. If you paint your house in the nicest colours, with the greatest care, is it perfect? Isn't that a silly question? It's just one house, with just one choice of possible colours, and you can always make a better job of it. So we look at the result, find it pleasing (or change it) and move on.
Why do we not apply the same sensible attitude with people?
Why would a woman drive herself crazy over her appearance, and in the next breath tell you that she believes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder/is only skin deep/doesn't prove anything/is all vanity?
According to Nietzche, vanity is fear of appearing original. I think there's something in that. There's certainly fear involved. Probably more than one fear. Fear of being thought "lesser". Fear of being thought dull, or conversely too colourful.
A long time ago, a friend said to me "We're doomed if we do, and doomed if we don't. If you dress fashionably, please say you're a sheep. If you don't dress fashionably, people say you're a frump. I don't want to be a sheep or a frump." I suggested, naturally, ignoring it all, and wearing what you like, but this was rejected as unrealistic. Dressing ourselves, apparently is a social norm, and much more important than just what we wear, it's all about the message it conveys.
YES. I agree. But I don't agree that it should be difficult. I think we are choosing the wrong messages.
Of course, we can't always assume that the intended message is the one received. That doesn't always even follow if we use words.
But somewhere between a shallow, pathetic, drone-like vanity, and "having no self-respect" is a sensible middle line, that is not uncomfortable, does not get us in debt, sends out the right messages, and is actually a pleasure rather than a stress. When we dress LIKE THAT, we are truly beautiful.
This is not necessarily coming from those confused about what constitutes "appropriate" clothing, but more from those trying to object to criticisms of their choices, and getting defensive when the question of "what my clothes say about me" comes up.
There are two things going on. Both are lies.
The first thing, as I said, is "I wear whatever I please". Bollocks. Absolute bollocks.
If it were true, women would not be agonizing over what to wear. If one truly dresses to please oneself, all decisions are easy. More of a "green or blue today?" decision.
Even when that is possible (and it isn't always, but I'll come back to that), it is incredibly rare for a woman to ignore outside influences on her choice of clothing. She has been conditioned from birth to worry about what other people think of the way she looks. Even if it has been done in the kindest and best-intentioned ways. Every time you tell a girl "you look pretty in that" she also hears "but not in that". Every time, in fact, you tell her that she is pretty, you are saying "therefore you are better than if you were not pretty". And many, many more messages like that.
There is nothing wrong with beauty. We do not wish to live in an ugly world. Which of these pictures do you prefer?
These are both images from Kenya. Ask yourself, is Kenya ugly or beautiful?
Many things we do every day involve aesthetic choices. We choose the more attractive (to us) of two or more things. Many things can be more or less visually appealing, including food, even the packaging of a food product. It is natural, and even good to seek beauty.
So, no, there is nothing wrong, on a personal basis, with trying to be more beautiful. The question remains, beautiful to whom? When you look in the mirror, are you thinking "yes, I like that on me", or are you thinking "yes, the world will like that on me"? It might be harder to answer than you think.
I hear many intelligent people go on at length about how they dress to please themselves, and they are lying through their teeth. Because if you catch them off-guard, you will hear them say "Oh no, I couldn't wear that". But you like it. "Yes, but I couldn't wear it".
The honesty of it all is too much for most people actually. It requires them to admit their doubts, their self-esteem issues, their deepest fears. There are very, very few people who honestly, truthfully wear what they please.
For most of us it's situational. There are occasions when there are certain expectations, and we follow them almost as a point of etiquette. There are extremes we won't push, because it might cause more offence than is acceptable, or worth it. Decisions, decisions.
As I have got older, my decisions on what to wear so as not to disturb the peace, have changed. But then so has society.When I was young, the expectations were different, so any rebellion I chose was different. This is an ever-changing thing.
What doesn't change is the need to question it all, and the need for questioners. Because if we had never had rebels, we'd still dress like this:
Rebels lead, but they get misunderstood. In fact the rebellion is misunderstood. The entire women's movement went off the rails. It began trying to get women the right to go out to work, and has led to women being expected to go out to work.
The whole point of rebellion is to create choice, not just new expectations. This always gets forgotten.
So, between expectations, and sub-conscious aversion, we generally, and at the very least not always, do not wear what we please.
The 2nd lie is that beauty is more about a person's personality and character. That only applies if you are blind. We all appreciate a good-looking thing, be it a human being, a horse, a car or a sunset. So why do we need to try to convince ourselves otherwise?
Of course a person's personality and character is more important. Yes, without question, I would rather be with kind, honest, fun people than "pretty" people any time at all. I do not choose my friends based on how they look, and if I were that shallow, I wouldn't deserve friends at all. And most of us prefer "interesting" over "classical beauty" any day of the week, if we think about it. Artists just love wrinkly old people. Most of us prefer old things to new things, much of the time, when it comes to looks, actually. We lavish praise on "weathered" buildings. Choose "distressed" furniture. Enjoy the "patina" of antique metals, and so on.
Which brings me to something I think is where we all go wrong when we are considering what is attractive.
Beauty is good, perfection is not. Quite apart from the impossibility of defining what is perfect, if it were achievable it would be BORING. We may describe something as perfect, but all we are saying is simply that we like it the way it is. If there was, for example, such a thing as perfect car, we'd all have the same one, and they wouldn't bother making any other type. Tastes vary. Sometimes certain things are more popular than others, in a contest, my guess is that roses would win out over dandelions, but that doesn't mean roses are a perfect flower.
When we seek beauty, we often make the huge mistake of seeking perfection. Perfection isn't beauty. If you paint your house in the nicest colours, with the greatest care, is it perfect? Isn't that a silly question? It's just one house, with just one choice of possible colours, and you can always make a better job of it. So we look at the result, find it pleasing (or change it) and move on.
Why do we not apply the same sensible attitude with people?
Why would a woman drive herself crazy over her appearance, and in the next breath tell you that she believes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder/is only skin deep/doesn't prove anything/is all vanity?
According to Nietzche, vanity is fear of appearing original. I think there's something in that. There's certainly fear involved. Probably more than one fear. Fear of being thought "lesser". Fear of being thought dull, or conversely too colourful.
A long time ago, a friend said to me "We're doomed if we do, and doomed if we don't. If you dress fashionably, please say you're a sheep. If you don't dress fashionably, people say you're a frump. I don't want to be a sheep or a frump." I suggested, naturally, ignoring it all, and wearing what you like, but this was rejected as unrealistic. Dressing ourselves, apparently is a social norm, and much more important than just what we wear, it's all about the message it conveys.
YES. I agree. But I don't agree that it should be difficult. I think we are choosing the wrong messages.
Of course, we can't always assume that the intended message is the one received. That doesn't always even follow if we use words.
But somewhere between a shallow, pathetic, drone-like vanity, and "having no self-respect" is a sensible middle line, that is not uncomfortable, does not get us in debt, sends out the right messages, and is actually a pleasure rather than a stress. When we dress LIKE THAT, we are truly beautiful.
Sunday, 14 April 2013
When You Don't Have An Axe
Tolerance, gratitude, and an awful lot of other ways we hold back the truth, stop us from killing one another on a regular basis. Our entire society and etiquette system is based on saying thank you for gifts we don't like, pretending we don't mind things, putting up with the presence of people we wish would go away, and generally being nice to annoying people to keep the peace, when we'd really rather tell them exactly what we think. And we all know this. We know full well when a person says "it's no trouble", that often it is, but politeness forbids any of us from breaking the rules and being honest.
I've even noticed a second level of make believe, whereby the person being annoyed pretends to be amused instead. Sometimes they are pretending to themselves - they've been taught somewhere that if you laugh instead, the annoyance doesn't get to you. Not sure how long you can keep that up.
What should we do instead?
Ideally, we should not get annoyed in the first place. With practice and serious intent, that can work at least some of the time. Most of us can learn to sometimes, let some of it just wash over us. I have found it gets easier with age, others have found the opposite. But there are times when no matter how hard we try not to, we allow annoying people to mess with our groove. It breaks through. It gets to us. This is especially true if they are doing it deliberately, and/or repetitively, but it can happen even if they are being annoying without realizing it.
I have found two approaches very helpful, together or separately.
1. Feel sorry for them. Ah, they may not deserve sympathy. But consider this: they are not happy. Something is causing them to behave in a way that is negative. It's never a good thing. Happy people do not do these annoying things. So, pity the fool.
2. Analyze them. Why does he do this? Find him an interesting case study. A puzzle to be solved. Figure out what it is that makes him behave in such a way.
One of the things I disapprove of in the normal course of events is revenge. I sometimes make an exception with annoying people. I try to drive them mad. Step 1 is to show an excessive amount of kindness towards them. It is completely fake, obviously, I'd really rather avoid them, and depending on just how annoying they are, I might rather put an axe through their head. But violence solves nothing, and faking sweetness can be almost as much fun.
Then, Step 2, analyze them out loud. Don't give any clues as to why you are doing it, just offer the conclusions of your study. Instead of reacting to their negativity in the way they expect, try showing concern, offering ideas to the root cause of the trouble. And I don't mean in the "subtle as a flying" brick sarcasm that my husband is known for ("What crawled up your arse?"). No. Instead try:
"Traffic was awful this morning, wasn't it?"
"Yes, some warm, dry weather would make such a difference."
"Of course, these solar flares are such a nuisance."
But if you are really at the end of your tether, you might wish to resort to:
"Oh you poor dear, are you constipated? I have some gentle herbal laxatives that might help. Would you like them?"
That should confuse them completely.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Common Sense
This is largely in reply to a comment on an earlier post which referred to how all sorts of people (i.e. including ordinary people) are capable of great philosophical insights.
Absolutely. You don't have to be a Professor of Philosophy to be a philosopher. As I mentioned earlier, I've been philosophizing my entire life, and only just recently started to study Philosophy "properly".
The question is, would it have benefitted me to have begun this study sooner? And, to be fair, is it of any real use now? It's all very well to enjoy it, but is there any real value, either to me or to anyone else?
It would appear that the value of Philosophy as a discipline lies in sharing it. It's a sort of positive infection really, transmitted person to person, causing them to think differently, and then passing it on.
And we do all this all of the time, without opening a book. Plenty of wise people have done it, over the course of human history, who never heard of Philosophy, never read a book, never knew Socrates existed, didn't think they were doing anything more than thinking, speaking, and passing it on. Maybe they had a wise person in their life, maybe they just sat on a riverbank and cogitated.
For me, if I had started studying as a teenager, would I be in a different place now? Would I have been wiser, would my life have taken a different course? Would it have been better, or worse? Would I have loved the study so much that I decided to become a philosopher?
Or would my lack of life experience have prevented me from appreciating it, so that I dismissed or forgot everything I was taught. Would it have had any value at all?
Why is it, in fact, that some young people are able to benefit from an early introduction to formal philosophy, some not, some follow it up, some don't, and some go on to become great philosophers, while others relegate what they learned to useful trivia for pub quizzes.
Could it be that when the student is ready, the teacher appears?
Among the many objections to the study of Philosophy, is the idea that really, all you need is common sense.
I refer you again to the idea I began with here, that any ordinary person can come up with the same idea as a great and wise teacher.
Earlier this week, in a blog on covering women's bodies, I asserted that our judgement of what is common sense is largely due to what we are used to.
Today I finished a wonderful book, by Guy Deutscher, about how language affects our perception. If you are interested in ideas like this I highly recommend it, it's called "Through the Language Glass".
The author, a highly respected linguist and academic, said:
".....ultimately, what common sense finds natural is what it is familiar with"
After a lifetime of formal study he arrived at the same conclusion as I did. I'm sure we're not alone here either. I'm certain that there are yak herders in Mongolia who've decided the same thing.
In fact, I'm suggesting that it's common sense to realize the limitations of common sense. I certainly didn't need to study philosophy to figure that out, because I've been saying it for years.
The other thing that we've all heard, of course, is that common sense isn't quite as common as it ought to be, but if it's just based on cultural norms anyway, I'm not sure how useful it is.
I've seen it abused plenty of times. If I had a penny for everytime I've heard a totally idiotic idea justified as being common sense, I'd be able to afford a philosophy degree.........
(Descartes was wrong)
Absolutely. You don't have to be a Professor of Philosophy to be a philosopher. As I mentioned earlier, I've been philosophizing my entire life, and only just recently started to study Philosophy "properly".
The question is, would it have benefitted me to have begun this study sooner? And, to be fair, is it of any real use now? It's all very well to enjoy it, but is there any real value, either to me or to anyone else?
It would appear that the value of Philosophy as a discipline lies in sharing it. It's a sort of positive infection really, transmitted person to person, causing them to think differently, and then passing it on.
And we do all this all of the time, without opening a book. Plenty of wise people have done it, over the course of human history, who never heard of Philosophy, never read a book, never knew Socrates existed, didn't think they were doing anything more than thinking, speaking, and passing it on. Maybe they had a wise person in their life, maybe they just sat on a riverbank and cogitated.
For me, if I had started studying as a teenager, would I be in a different place now? Would I have been wiser, would my life have taken a different course? Would it have been better, or worse? Would I have loved the study so much that I decided to become a philosopher?
Or would my lack of life experience have prevented me from appreciating it, so that I dismissed or forgot everything I was taught. Would it have had any value at all?
Why is it, in fact, that some young people are able to benefit from an early introduction to formal philosophy, some not, some follow it up, some don't, and some go on to become great philosophers, while others relegate what they learned to useful trivia for pub quizzes.
Could it be that when the student is ready, the teacher appears?
Among the many objections to the study of Philosophy, is the idea that really, all you need is common sense.
I refer you again to the idea I began with here, that any ordinary person can come up with the same idea as a great and wise teacher.
Earlier this week, in a blog on covering women's bodies, I asserted that our judgement of what is common sense is largely due to what we are used to.
Today I finished a wonderful book, by Guy Deutscher, about how language affects our perception. If you are interested in ideas like this I highly recommend it, it's called "Through the Language Glass".
The author, a highly respected linguist and academic, said:
".....ultimately, what common sense finds natural is what it is familiar with"
After a lifetime of formal study he arrived at the same conclusion as I did. I'm sure we're not alone here either. I'm certain that there are yak herders in Mongolia who've decided the same thing.
In fact, I'm suggesting that it's common sense to realize the limitations of common sense. I certainly didn't need to study philosophy to figure that out, because I've been saying it for years.
The other thing that we've all heard, of course, is that common sense isn't quite as common as it ought to be, but if it's just based on cultural norms anyway, I'm not sure how useful it is.
I've seen it abused plenty of times. If I had a penny for everytime I've heard a totally idiotic idea justified as being common sense, I'd be able to afford a philosophy degree.........
(Descartes was wrong)
Challenge Your Dearly Held Beliefs
We are stubborn creatures.
Every day of my life I read or hear something I don't agree with.
That is the most normal thing, it is as it should be, it is all part of our process of discernment.
What we do next makes all the difference.
It's actually easier to defend our own opinions, to fight off attacks on them, to dismiss our critics, and to stand our ground, than it is to examine our position and double check whether it's "right" or not, bearing in mind what's right for one person is not necessarily right for another.
We are stubborn creatures, after all.
And sometimes we are certain. We are certain we are right, and we have considered it carefully, and we really do NOT wish to change our views.
Well, we may just be right:)
There is an idea that one must always keep an open mind. I agree, with the proviso that if it's too open, it can fall out.
Still, the objective for me is to remain aware, to consider, to judge fairly, and to be willing to change my opinion if I find it faulty.
I have had to change my opinion on the value of lecture. I could make the excuse that as I never experienced a proper lecture when I was younger, I had no point of reference. I have always studied well from books, at my own pace, choosing my own readings, and retaining what I read. So, when people have told me they were taking a class in something or other, my reaction was "why not just read a book?"
OK, I GET IT. There really is a difference. One still needs to read the book, obviously, but when certain points are "presented" (assuming it is done well, obviously) there is an extra something, I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's different, it's better, and it works. And I love it.
Had you said this to me before I started my Coursera courses, I'd have said "I don't need to study that way. I study perfectly well just reading a book."
(We are stubborn creatures.)
And I would have been WRONG.
Apart from the value of lecture, it really helps knowing WHAT to read. Yes, being told to. Being forced, in fact, to read something that otherwise I would not have. And then going WOAH.
If you want to catch up on my studies, read this:
http://theolddoglearns.blogspot.ca/2013/04/challenges.html
Otherwise we'll leave that just as an example, and move on.
It's OK to be wrong, and to change one's mind. It tends to happen less as we get older, because we have already considered some things many, many times. But it's actually important to keep considering we might be wrong.
I suppose I was already open-minded enough, that I did at least take the leap, rather than continuing to believe all I ever needed was access to books. So, maybe I was halfway there.
But this happens only because I decided (when?) that it was a good idea to question everything. Perhaps I was born that way. It's quite possible.
Somewhere along the way in our personal development we make various decisions to this effect. We decide to be open to new possibilities. Otherwise there is no personal development.
I suppose before that, we decide to decide....where does it begin?
Hopefully our families encourage it. If they don't we get lucky with teachers. Including those at school.
I'm not one to push ideas on others, but at some point we all need that first kick, and we probably need a lot of kicks afterwards. Gentle kicks are best, the whole thing of catching more flies with honey than vinegar. If we kick too hard we are met with defensiveness.
We are stubborn creatures.
Every day of my life I read or hear something I don't agree with.
That is the most normal thing, it is as it should be, it is all part of our process of discernment.
What we do next makes all the difference.
It's actually easier to defend our own opinions, to fight off attacks on them, to dismiss our critics, and to stand our ground, than it is to examine our position and double check whether it's "right" or not, bearing in mind what's right for one person is not necessarily right for another.
We are stubborn creatures, after all.
And sometimes we are certain. We are certain we are right, and we have considered it carefully, and we really do NOT wish to change our views.
Well, we may just be right:)
There is an idea that one must always keep an open mind. I agree, with the proviso that if it's too open, it can fall out.
Still, the objective for me is to remain aware, to consider, to judge fairly, and to be willing to change my opinion if I find it faulty.
I have had to change my opinion on the value of lecture. I could make the excuse that as I never experienced a proper lecture when I was younger, I had no point of reference. I have always studied well from books, at my own pace, choosing my own readings, and retaining what I read. So, when people have told me they were taking a class in something or other, my reaction was "why not just read a book?"
OK, I GET IT. There really is a difference. One still needs to read the book, obviously, but when certain points are "presented" (assuming it is done well, obviously) there is an extra something, I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's different, it's better, and it works. And I love it.
Had you said this to me before I started my Coursera courses, I'd have said "I don't need to study that way. I study perfectly well just reading a book."
(We are stubborn creatures.)
And I would have been WRONG.
Apart from the value of lecture, it really helps knowing WHAT to read. Yes, being told to. Being forced, in fact, to read something that otherwise I would not have. And then going WOAH.
If you want to catch up on my studies, read this:
http://theolddoglearns.blogspot.ca/2013/04/challenges.html
Otherwise we'll leave that just as an example, and move on.
It's OK to be wrong, and to change one's mind. It tends to happen less as we get older, because we have already considered some things many, many times. But it's actually important to keep considering we might be wrong.
I suppose I was already open-minded enough, that I did at least take the leap, rather than continuing to believe all I ever needed was access to books. So, maybe I was halfway there.
But this happens only because I decided (when?) that it was a good idea to question everything. Perhaps I was born that way. It's quite possible.
Somewhere along the way in our personal development we make various decisions to this effect. We decide to be open to new possibilities. Otherwise there is no personal development.
I suppose before that, we decide to decide....where does it begin?
Hopefully our families encourage it. If they don't we get lucky with teachers. Including those at school.
I'm not one to push ideas on others, but at some point we all need that first kick, and we probably need a lot of kicks afterwards. Gentle kicks are best, the whole thing of catching more flies with honey than vinegar. If we kick too hard we are met with defensiveness.
We are stubborn creatures.
Thursday, 11 April 2013
Girls 5
I hope you read my blogs yesterday, I hope you've read this whole series. They work best in sequence. This is a big issue, far too much for a few soundbytes.
Yesterday I got a very good comment, and I responded with a bit of a spoiler for today's point, which is about the messages we send. I'm sure you are aware that what we say and what we do are all messages, albeit often quite different to how the words or actions might appear. We say one thing and mean another, and I'm not talking about pragmatics here.
In the example from the comment yesterday, I suggested that depending on how we cover our naked children, the message we send can be quite a disturbing one. This is of course a controversial assertion, as you may say that your intent was not that at all, and I'm sure it wasn't, but intent here is irrelevant.
When you take a small child, and dress her in a bikini, you are saying that she has something to hide. Specifically you are saying that certain parts of her body are singled out as different, and these must be hidden. Ultimately you are saying that these parts are sexual.
This is a child. There is nothing sexual about a child. They have not reached an age where it is relevant. A female child's chest looks the same as a male child's chest, and therefore covering it in a bikini top is a choice based on the future, on something that doesn't exist yet. We'll leave aside whether adult female breasts need to be covered for now, the fact is that a child has none. If you cover her AND her brother in a t-shirt, to keep the sun off, it's a totally different issue. I'm talking about the deliberate choice to cover only specific parts of her chest in a garment that was designed for adults, in a society that just so happens to require adult female breasts to be covered.
Why do it? Well, the argument put forward yesterday was to stop snooping perverts with cameras etc. Obviously this is a matter of some importance. These people are repulsive, and we have a natural desire to protect our children from them. But by dressing them in adult clothing, to cover body parts they don't have, we are sending a message that "yes, you're correct, my child is sexual".
Told you this would be controversial. Bet you've been enjoying all this series and now you are going "WOAH Melanie, you've gone too far now". Hear me out.
You are saying this loud and clear. In addition you are saying "Now you have to guess what's under the bikini top", and the pervert, in his warped little world of fantasy, goes "SLURP". You have just played right into his hands.
Before I go any further, it appears that I am biased towards the European view, and you'd be right. When I offered, non-judgementally, two views towards the nakedness of children yesterday, it was because both parents intentions are good. No harm is meant by letting children run naked on the beach, and I'm quite certain no harm is meant by dressing little girls in bikinis. It seems the natural thing to do, based on the prevailing culture, fashion, and so on. No harm is meant, the intention is good, because we are USED to this culture. You've heard the media talk about Rape Culture? Well, this is where it begins. Until we stop and think, it will continue.
Obviously the issue is more complex when it comes to covering the lower half of her body. Here, both genders are covered, and for that reason, it really isn't such a big deal. It is still sexualizing children, and we could argue that it's wrong and unnatural, and sends a bad message, but there's a difference here that's crucial, and I'll come back to it.
So is it really such a bad thing sending out a message to the world that "Yes, I acknowledge my daughter is potentially a sexual creature"? Yes, it is, but it's not the worst message. The worst message is the one sent to the child. The worst message is "YOU are a sexual creature".
We discussed a couple of weeks ago that until a certain age, somewhere around puberty at the earliest, girls are not ready for sexuality either physically or mentally. If there is anyone who thinks that a pre-pubescent child has any need for sexuality they may need to seek help. Certainly some of them are curious, which is natural, but that is another matter altogether.
Which brings me to the first problem. How do we answer questions they may have while retaining their innocence? It's a fine balance. Most parents, if they have any sense, answer questions promptly, without showing embarrasment, and keep it very simple. They don't have to be kept away from the realities of creating life, and they certainly should not be lied to. Children raised on a farm tend to have less questions about the mechanics of procreation, I assure you. But there is more to sex than copulation, and what we are really concerned with is sexuality, or their understanding of it.
They should absolutely NOT learn about sexuality from daytime soaps, chat shows, and other TV shows or movies that were not intended for their age group. These send out more wrong messages than I could list if this blog was a full size book.
Possibly the worst influence is music videos. Because this is the same as the bikini issue. Not just how it objectifies women, but in society's complete disregard for how this happens. A child will be dragged away from watching two dogs having sex, but allowed to watch as many Lady Gaga videos as she wants.
Even the lyrics have potential to cause problems. I invite you to read this blog:
http://www.thefrisky.com/2008-10-22/10-songs-that-objectify-women-that-we-really-love/
I am not blaming Lady Gaga, or you, for this. It's all part of the culture. We're used to it. We don't see the harm. In fact, as modern women we say that we have a right to this, and didn't you just say Melanie, that what we wear is not the problem?
It depends whose mind you are concerned with. You can not affect the male mind one way or the other, that's his domain. He will undress you in his imagination, whether you dress like a prostitute or a Mennonite. You may "advertise" readiness, but for every man who finds readiness appealling, there's another one who find chastity erotic....and you better believe it. No, what you wear isn't the problem when it comes to male attitudes.
What you wear is all about your attitude, how you feel about yourself. It may be deliberately provocative, it may be all about comfort, it may be carefully chosen to hide the parts you think need hiding. But it is governed both by how you think you should present yourself, AND how you feel about yourself. In other words, your attitude affects your choice of clothing, and your choice of clothing affects your attitude. When you are dressing yourself, these are mostly (within your cultural framework) free choices. Your body, your decisions, your clothes. As an adult you know how to deal with a sexual aspect of it. One hopes.
A child doesn't. She is learning, watching. She is picking up clues, becoming encultured. She's getting those messages thick and fast, and it's very confusing. There are people telling her that sex is for grown-ups, and then buying her the same clothes that some women wear to deliberately attract men. They are teaching her about "stanger danger", and then buying her a bra, before she has anything to put in it, that has "Feeling Lucky" written on it. The most confusing and dangerous thing we ever do to anyone is send mixed messages, and it's stupid. When we do it to children, it's utterly reprehensible.
How do we teach our children the realities of life, to keep them safe from sexual predators, without damaging their innocence? It's not easy, and there are no guarantees. Just when we think we've got it covered, the scheming predators will find a gap. But what we certainly don't want to do is teach our daughters that they are legitimate prey.
Nope, still not finished.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)