I Wandered Lonely As A Clod

Yesterday I had a bit of a rant about people who just don't CARE about language. So long as they can more or less communicate, they don't bother with it.

I can tell you in advance who these people will be. I can predict it.

You see, we are all taught our spoken language at home, and our written language at school, but our attitude towards it is not as arbitrary as you might think.

If a person speaks ONLY English, there is a far higher chance they won't bother much. Those who know at least one other language (doesn't have to be fluent) usually show more interest/take more care in their own language.

Most people on this planet speak more than one language, it's only a minority who only speak one. This comes as shock for those who only speak English and think it's normal. No. There are children in many countries who grow up with 3 or 4 languages, and do so with ease.

Once you look at other languages, you find yourself noticing things about your own. It's inevitable.

I think it was learning other languages in school that turned me onto etymology.

You may or may not know that English didn't always sound the way it does now. You have presumably heard Shakepearean English, but you've heard it read by modern English speakers. It sounded quite different, actually.

So that's Early Modern English (16th century). Let's go back a bit further.

You may have heard of the Canterbury Tales (14th century). Having grown up near Canterbury I had this rammed down my throat in school, and as a result I have no problem with this, but I bet most of you won't even be able to understand a word of it:

And we still haven't reached "Old English". In fact, it's so different, it's another language altogether, and is usually just called Anglo-Saxon. Here's a sample, from the 10th century.

Compare to this, Old Norse:

In the comments at You Tube, an Icelandic speaker has no problem understanding this. And we are told that an Old Norse speaker, and a speaker of any of the Saxon dialects, would have understood one another. Not only does language move geographically, and through time, it develops faster in some places than others.

All of this lets us look at a word we use today, and where it came from. English had a lot of outside influences, especially from Latin and French. If you look at very ordinary everyday words, they tend to be obviously from the Saxon lineage, and the "fancier" words from French and Latin.

Bread, for example is obviously related to the German "Brot", Dutch "Brood", and Danish "Brød", but wine is obviously conected to French "vin", and Latin "vinum".

You may also have noticed that animals and their meat have different names.

Pig is from Anglo-Saxon, Pork is from French
Cow is from Anglo-Saxon, Beef is from French
Sheep is from Anglo-Saxon, Mutton isfrom French
Deer is from Anglo-Saxon, Venison is from French

Even chicken has a French word used to describe it: "Poultry" is from French.

Why? Because the common people, who stuck to the old language, the farmers, they raised the animals.

The posh people, the barons, the rich, with their French background, they ate it.

Quite often two modern words sound similar, but have different meanings. It could be sheer coincidence, but it could be due to a historical connection. For example, did you know that the reason you have a clod of earth, and a cloud in the sky, is that they both come from an older word meaning lump? Makes perfect sense when you think about it. As above, so below, same shape.

Once you start noticing things like that, once you start taking an interest, once language becomes more than just a way to order your drive-through food, you start to see the beauty in it, and you start to care.

Language is what made civilization possible. It lifted us out of the animal kingdom a wee bit, and allowed to us share our thoughts, our hopes, our dreams, our problems. Instead of just doing things, we can discuss things. We can teach one another, and pass things on.

I don't expect everyone to care about language, but rightly or wrongly, when I come across those who don't, I assume there are other things they don't care about too. I find that rather sad.



Nobody knows where the word dog comes from.

Plain Speaking

Two threads on the same topic in different places this morning, and it's time I waffled on about communication again.

There are at least 4 people I see regularly on Facebook, whose writing is so bad that until I got to know them, I assumed English was not their first language. It turns out that it is, and that in fact, all of them have a university education.

I discovered today that Facebook has a spellcheck. Either I didn't know this or it was so long ago I had forgotten. Perhaps a lot of other people don't know this either because I see a lot of errors on there. Or maybe what I'm seeing is just the tip of the iceberg. Maybe it would otherwise be far, far worse.

I get told I fuss too much over this, but these people are all parents, do they have no interest in literacy?

So, let's just say that Facebook entries full of errors don't matter (I don't agree, but for the sake of argument, we'll accept it). What about actual journalism? What about published books? What about business pages online?

What I'm asking is, where do we draw the line? Where can we no longer shrug it off or sneer at those who expect it to be correct and call them pedants?

Twice recently I have been in discussions online, where a response, specifically for me, was so lacking in grammatical construction and punctuation that I couldn't actually decipher it. Having been reamed out quite vociferously as an obnoxious pedant many times, one hesitates to ask for a translation, frankly. I just left the discussion instead.

But this isn't the entire problem, is it? Not only do people not write with any care, they don't read with any care either.

One of my fellow Etsy sellers voiced a common problem. Customers buying patterns thinking they are going to get the finished item instead, and getting angry when it doesn't arrive. Here's the listing:

https://www.etsy.com/listing/164693118/knitting-pattern-instant-pdf-download-to

If the words KNITTING PATTERN and a price of $3.40 with no shipping even offered, doesn't tell you not to expect a bag, you are really not paying attention.

I get a lot of questions that are answered in descriptions, because nobody reads descriptions, but this? Come on.

And at the same time, a discussion is raised about how people should proofread their listings, and we are all told not to be judgemental........

Is this part of the whole "you're all winners!" thing that some children grow up with? This isn't realistic.

If you want to write gibberish on a Facebook status, go right ahead. But if you are publishing or selling, if professionalism is expected or at least useful in a competitive situation, why would you not make the effort ro proofread, or get somebody to do it for you if you know you have a problem?

And if reading comprehension could save you a lot of disappointment, and possibly money, is it not worth taking the time?

WHAT AM I MISSING HERE?

The Public Gets What The Public Wants

Something that crops up frequently in the fascinating discussions I have online is the deeper/original meanings of the words conservative and liberal, and how, while there is a connection to politics, they aren't actually necessarily political terms.

I'll save myself a lot of typing by lifting definitions straight out of the dictionary:

1. con·serv·a·tive

   kənˈsərvətiv/

   adjective

   adjective: conservative

   1. 1.

      holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.

      synonyms:

      traditionalist, traditional, conventional, orthodox, old-fashioned, dyed-in-the-wool, hidebound, unadventurous, set in one's ways; More

      antonyms:

      radical

   .
2. 
   

lib·er·al

ˈlib(ə)rəl/

adjective

adjective: liberal

1. 1.

   open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.

   "they have more liberal views toward marriage and divorce than some people"

   • favorable to or respectful of individual rights and freedoms.

     "liberal citizenship laws"

     synonyms:

     tolerant, unprejudiced, unbigoted, broad-minded, open-minded,enlightened; More

     antonyms:

     narrow-minded, bigoted

   
   

Some of these terms make people bristle, but the dictionary is simply reporting what the common usage is.

When it comes right down to it, it is saying that "conventional" and "tolerant" are opposites. It's interesting then, to ask where these attitudes arise from. What makes a person prefer convention, and what makes another person say "No, there's a better way!" If I knew that, I could probably fix society. 

There are clues; some of it is personality traits, and some of it is upbringing. That whole nature/nurture blend. 

There is logic in both attitudes. It's just as reasonable to say "Look, it's worked just fine for thousands of years, so why change it?" as it is to say "We need to end this great injustice, it's time for a change." And of course, that's where all the arguments start. 

But what people forget, a lot, I think, is that this is a scale. You'd actually be hard pressed to find anyone who was fully conservative or fully liberal. Not only are most of us, in a general way, somewhere along a line.....

.....but we also pick and choose different points along that scale on different issues. It's quite common, for example for people to be more conservative with parenting, or money, or attitudes towards crime and punishment, than they are with regard to marriage, recreational drugs, or clothing. 

What happens though, is that the further right you are in your ordinary, everyday attitudes, the more likely you are that your voting patterns and support for politicians and their activities will fall on the same side. What I'm trying to say is that people vote conservative because they have conservative attitudes, rather than the other way around. At least IN THEORY. At least, if they consider it all carefully. At least if they ever think about it at all. 

What may surprise you is that what you have been taught about people being very pro-authority because they are conservative minded is twisted. 

What actually happens is that people seek a very specific level of authority. All people benefit from authority. There is a natural level that all humans are comfortable with, not too little, not too much. It varies from person to person, but it falls within a range. Humans tend to seek the order that some sort of authority brings. This doesn't mean an individual desires to be governed. What he desires is that others are governed, so he doesn't have to worry about their behaviour. He wants law and order.

In places where there is a very weak government, and there is considerable lawlessness, people either seek a more authoritarian government (confusing authoritarianism with strength) or they become very self-reliant instead (the Wild West). Both of these inevitably lead to conservative attitudes. It becomes an intolerant society because any sign of rebellion is seen as a risk to the order that is sought. 

On the other hand, when a goverment is too authoritarian, people feel opressed and sometimes look for rebellion as a way out, and as the enemy of my enemy is my friend, they embrace all and every form of dissention. This can descend into chaos, and there is a sort of "pull-back" effect.

The problem is that when people feel that need for order, that need for authority, and they are not getting it, where do they look? Who do they go to?

What we see all too often is that they jump from the frying pan into the fire. They find forms of authority that sound good (extremist religious groups, guerilla leaders) but these people are no better at running things than the weak government were, in fact usually, they are far worse.

No leadership ever achieves power without support. You could be the wisest potential leader ever, but without enough people to put you in power (one way or another) you won't get there. All too often those who get into power are not the wisest, not the best for the job, but the best at rallying support. Rhetoric and leadership are two different skills, but people are remarkably good at confusing the two.

Oddly enough, the best protection against authoritarianism is authority. If you have a system with a good set of rules, there is no need for a stricter system, and therefore no craving for one. This set of rules can be carefully worked out to be very fair, and then provided everyone sticks to it (no corruption), things should chug along nicely. Dissention will be minimal and easily dealt with.

This is why the system of government is ultimately less important than the quality of it. An excellent dictator could run a country just as well as the most democratically elected official, and possibly better, as less time would be wasted on meetings and decisions. The problem is that corruption occurs in all systems, and democratic ones have better ways to deal with it.

If your dictator behaves badly you have to oust him in a coup. And who knows what you'll get instead. If your democratically elected leader behaves badly you have simple ways to get a new one, even if you have to wait until the next election. The main reason democracy is preferred, in the end, is that it has solutions when things go wrong. And they will.

If I sound a bit cynical about leaders, it's because I am. I don't trust any of them. They all renege on promises, they all make decisions they and their cronies will benefit from despite the effect it will have on the general populace. I don't like that, but I'm not a fool. It has been that way for tens of thousands of years, and I see no sign of it changing. Some leaders are more honourable than others, but not one of them has clean hands, because you simply don't get into positions of power if you are 100% straight. It sucks, but that's how it is.

So, corruption is a huge problem, but what's worse is the apathy and foolishness of the rest of us. If we paid more attention, there'd be less corruption, and better leaders.

But not only do we tend to sit on our arses, whine about the state of things instead of doing anything about it, and elect complete buffoons, some of us, many of us, seek authority for the worst possible reason of all. To avoid having to make decisions for ourselves.

This is the part I just don't get. I can philosophize and rationalize all sorts of attitudes, but when it comes down to the inability to be one's own authority, I'm lost.

And so this desire for authority becomes a conservative position by default. Out of laziness or whatever dysfunction it is that people suffer from, whereby they can't function unless somebody tells them what to do.

Is that a political issue? No, I don't think so. I think it's a personal problem. But it BECOMES a political issue, and moreover it becomes a big issue for the rest of us, because these people vote. They lend their support to those who will happily tell them what to do. They are walking targets for the corrupt, the authoritarian, and the positively dangerous, and there are a lot of them.

Depending on your own interests and recent reading, you may now be thinking of the Tea Party or the Taliban. Doesn't matter. Same applies. People looking for authority in all the wrong places. The leaders themselves are not the problem. The supporters are the problem. They are the ones who get these idiots into power. Because they haven't thought it through. They may not have thought about it much at all.

Oh Dear

Isn't it ironic. On the day (yesterday) that I wrote a blog post trying to explain the concept of feminism, I felt it necessary to unfriend a man on Facebook over a sexist remark.

I hadn't known this man long, friend of a friend sort of thing, and we got along fairly well, despite very different backgrounds. Intelligent adults can do that.

But yesterday, after a disagreement with another woman on a political topic, he said something I don't allow. And I bid him Adieu.

No, he didn't say anything offensive to me, but I cannot sit by and watch that happen. A person who is nice to me, but is not nice to other people, is not a nice person.

The conversation they had is nobody else's business, but he dismissed her opinion by blaming her hormones.

No. You don't do that.

I wrote about that recently:

http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-oppression-of-women-subtle-or.html

There is really nothing so dismissive, as responding to a woman's opinions by saying it's caused by her hormones.

This is identical to dismissing an opinion by skin colour.

Think about it.

I don't allow racism on my Facebook feed, and I don't allow blatant sexism either. There are no excuses for a man of a mature age.

Feminism Redux

You can't have missed by now that I identify as a feminist and I am well aware that some of you don't. In fact some of you are not all that keen on the idea of feminism. And I understand, I actually do.

There was a time I would have agreed with you. It took me a long time, in fact to realise that I was a feminist, and the problem was mostly to do with definitions. Basically I didn't understand what feminism meant, and clearly still a lot of people don't.

And wouldn't it be great if I could just give you a definition now, and you'd read it and shout "OH HO! I misunderstood all along! I AM a feminist". But it doesn't work like that.

I arrived on the internet in 1997, and prior to that my entire worldview and education had been extremely limited. If you are young and don't remember a world pre-internet you wouldn't understand just how much difference the situation was regarding access to information and differing opinions. I used to go to the library frequently, as a voracious reader sometimes 3 times a week, and I read all sorts of books, most non-fiction. But without any real guidance or anyone to share it with, I mostly avoided the ones that would have led me to understand such issues as feminism. I simply didn't think it applied to me.

Despite all the information available on the internet, many people have yet to stumble across this, and they have never been persuaded to seek it out. Alternatively they may have read articles and opinions that have quite put them off looking further into it.

One way and another, it is 2014 and we still have people who think feminism is a bad thing.

But this wasn't the only area where the internet led me to an understanding. I learned about definitions, and how useless they often are.

It was a man - yes, A MAN - who first threw out his definition of feminism, that began my understanding. So, in fact I learned two things at once, I learned right there that men can be feminists too. That concept becomes obvious when you understand what feminism is all about. So what's it about then?

Well, his definition was this:

Feminism is the idea that women are people too.

Sounds simple enough, is that really it? Obviously it's a bit more complex than that. But he had heard that somewhere, he had grokked it, and he was sharing it around. It's a very good starting point.

Unfortunately, there are people who call themselves feminists, whose demands are excessive, and who are misandrists.

It's strange that in all other groupings, we cry stereotype or prejudice if we lump everyone in with the obnoxious extremists, be it by religion, race, profession, nationality, political compass, or whatever. It's well attested that a minority within any grouping does not represent the whole group. But for some reason feminists are not afforded this understanding. There is a lunatic fringe therefore all feminists are of that ilk. Very odd really, because it is intelligent people falling into this trap.

No, the misandrist extremists in feminism do not represent feminism, any more than Fred Phelps represents Christianity.

Once I had understood this much, I needed to understand what the objective of feminism was.

You have to understand that I was married young, and I took a very traditional role in that marriage. For most of it I have not worked outside the home. I raised a large family and I am skilled in all the domestic arts, cooking, sewing, etc. Does feminism look down on that?

No.

Feminism doesn't insist on women doing men's roles. Feminism says that the idea that there are gender roles at all is purely cultural, points to exceptions in other cultures, and questions their validity.

Most importantly, feminism says that all human beings deserve to be treated as human beings first, and we'll worry about the roles afterwards.

Unquestionably there are biological roles. Women are the ones who give birth and lactate. Men tend to be bigger and stronger. So, when we lived in stone age times, using spears to hunt food, it made a lot of sense to divide roles up along biological lines. There is nothing wrong with women staying in a safe place with the children, while men go hunting. It's logical, it's practical.

It's been a long, long time since the vast majority of humans lived like that. There is no actual need in the modern western world for even the most basic gender roles, and while women still give birth, men are perfectly capable of caring for babies, and women can hunt to their hearts content.

Which is not to say they want to. Which is where choice comes in. A fundamental aspect of feminism is choice. So, if a woman and her partner are happy with the old arrangement, there is no problem.

I won't bore you with the development of agriculture and the history of patriarchy. We are here, NOW. And that was a long time ago. We are also 100 years beyond women's suffrage, in a world where we dress as we please and if a girl wants to be a soldier on active duty she can be. So we've come a long way. It was feminism that got us here, but it's not enough.

As I have posted before, there is still plenty of inequality faced by women, and therefore feminists still have a lot to say.

Here are some of the things we say:

Women and men should be given the same pay for the same work.
Women and men should be given the same level of of medical care.
Women and men should be free to wear whatever clothing they wish to wear.
Women and men should have the same educational opportunities.
Women and men should have the same legal protection.
Women and men should be equally represented in authority.
Women and men should enjoy equal respect when their opinions are presented.
Women and men should have the same expectations of morality.

If you agree with all of these, then you may be a feminist.

Still not sure? Still don't like it?

I'm not going to repeat myself here, but I am going to refer you to some older blog posts that you may have missed, or would benefit from seeing with fresh eyes.

http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2014/02/the-oppression-of-women-subtle-or.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/05/patriarchy-under-threat-good.html

And here's one for those of you who say the fault also lies with women, which was never in dispute. Just as men can easily be feminists, and many are, some women are not:

http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/12/misogyny.html

And my whole series from last year. If you are too busy to read them all, read the last one.

http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/03/girls-1.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/03/girls-2.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/03/girls-3.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/girls-4.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/girls-4b.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/girls-5.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/girls-6-to-sum-up.html
http://chovblog.blogspot.ca/2013/04/girls-short-attention-span-edition.html

Some of you will still not understand, and I will just persevere.

Some of you will state  "I'll never become a feminist." No, you won't. That's actually quite rare. What usually happens, in fact is that you realise you already were a feminist.

If, on the other hand, you are quite content with women being treated as inferior, you can just bugger off now.

A Rare Parenting Blog

Somebody turns 22 today. And he's fucking awesome.

But this is not about him.

I went to Google images to find a nice "meme" that I could use as a Facebook birthday card and, just like trying to buy a real greetings card, there was nothing suitable. They fell into two very obvious camps - soppy or rude. I have no desire to be either of those, so I wrote my own.

But while I was browsing I saw this, and I've seen it before. You all have:

I've seen many people use it as a Facebook share, and in other places too.

It's the biggest piece of garbage I've ever seen.

So you're setting out to make your kids hate you? Hey, great plan!

You are not their friend first? Well, your loss. You could be the greatest friend they ever have. And vice versa.

Stalk them, drive them insane, worst nightmare, hunt them down.....

What sort of parent is that? Yeuk. And again I say YEUK.

If that's how you want your relationship with your kids, go for it. Count me out.

I fully accept the idea that there's more than one way to raise kids successfully, in fact there are billions of ways. It's a bespoke job. Every child is different, every family is different, every parent is different. I definitely did not raise my youngest the same as I did my eldest because I was 13 years older, and with a shitload more experience, but they both turned out fine.

What these two journeys had in common was the same end goal, and the same basic method. It was just tweaked for the circumstances.

And I did not raise my kids the same way I was raised because the situation was entirely different, but I took the best from my upbringing, left out the bits I don't think worked very well, and added stuff from inspiration and from the successes of others. I often broke all the rules, and I had to think on my feet a lot. And I ignored criticism, because it was groundless.

Having seen my objections to the piece above perhaps you are thinking I'm a very permissive parent. Some think so. Others...well, I've been accused of being too strict. I love it when you get accused of both ends of a spectrum (it usually means you've found a balance).

Many of you have heard me say this before, but it bears repeating. When my kids were younger I would get two regular remarks.

1. Melanie, you are too strict with your kids.
2. Melanie, you have great kids.

And the hilarious part is that they often both came from the same person. And lots of them. I think understanding cause and effect is a dying art.

Strict? What does strict mean? Apparently it means making certain demands, and, on the other hand, saying no and sticking to it. But demanding what? Saying no to what? The devil is in the details.

My parenting philosophy is really very simple. First, show love. Then, be firm but fair. If you never forget that you will be fine, because that's all there is to it. The problem is that people confuse sentiment with love, confuse unkindness with firmness, and confuse indulgence with fairness. They do it in all their decisions and relationships, so why wouldn't they do it with their children?

Look at pet ownership. I am good to my animals. They are well-treated and loved. Love, not sentiment. I do not think of them as children. They are not my children. Many people think of their animals as children, and that's their relationship, not mine. I do not interfere with their relationship. They, however, see fit to criticize mine. I do not allow my pets on my bed, I don't refer to myself as their "mom", I don't buy them endless toys, or put clothes on them. I call "Here" as I go out the door and my dogs trot along beside me. When I come back in they sit at my feet. This is our relationship. It has existed between humans and dogs for tens of thousands of years and suddenly it's not good enough? I do not want a cuddly-wuddly minature dog in a rhinestone collar that I have to carry around. I want a traditional canine companion. So, no, it's not my child. And for this I have been criticized.

But I take no notice, because I know the problem lies with the critic. They are projecting endless insecurities of their own. Not my problem.

With children it gets even more complicated. Admit to smacking your kid's arse and people freak right out. Some of them would report you to authorities.

The fact that children have had their arses smacked for tens of thousands of years, and the human race has achieved the dizzying heights it has, never enters their head. Somewhere in the last 50 years the sentimentalists have decided we can't do that, because some parents overdo it, so we can't do it at all - it's gradually becoming unacceptable.

But it didn't stop there. Did it?

Saying "no" is bad. Raising your voice is bad. Don't even let the poor baby-waby hear the tone of your voice change. And OH MY GOD we can't insist on them doing anything they don't want to do. We can't insist they amuse themselves when we're busy. We can't expect them do to do things for themselves. We wait on them hand and foot.

Bollocks. These are trainee adults, and they have a lot to learn in a very short space of time.

If you look around you you'll see a third generation of spoiled brats, with no self-discipline, an entitlement complex, and a list of neuroses as long as your arm. Making therapists rich. Giving teachers ulcers. Unable to care for themselves. No ambition, no clue.

And what's the result of this soppy parenting? I'll tell you. By the time they get to their teens they can't be trusted - so their parents end up stalking them to find out what they're doing, they can't be relied upon - so their parents drive them insane reminding them, they can't control themselves - so their parents become their worst nightmares trying to make up for years of no consequences, and they don't even have the good manners to be home on time or let anyone know where they are - so their parents hunt them down.

And having had no rules for the first ten or so years, suddenly as they become independent they don't know how to conduct themselves when out on their own, so they screw it all up. And suddenly the parent who wanted to be a parent first but chose to be a soft parent, has to become the heavy parent - and gets hated for it.

You cannot suddenly decide to clamp down on them at 13, or 16, or 18..... when they've been allowed to run rings round you since birth - that doesn't work.

They'll take no notice of you. Seriously. If you suddenly change tack, they'll ignore it. They'll look for ideas, they'll look to some sort of substitute authority. Where? Probably their friends, their peers.

Among those friends there will be good ideas and bad ideas. You can be the friend with the good ideas. If you are convincing enough, you can overshadow the dumb ideas, at least most of the time. Yes, you CAN be a parent and a friend at the same time. It isn't even difficult. It does require some insight into what a friend is.

Kids will make mistakes, it's what kids do. They won't behave well all the time. They won't always do the right thing. NOBODY DOES.

But if, right from the start, they have parents who set a good example, and instill character into a kid, he'll sort it all out for himself.

Or...well...maybe this is about him. Because there were times, many times when I heard that other, oh so familiar stupid shit from the critics of other people's parenting. Some of you know how it goes. It's where they tell you that your kid's behaviour is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with. And then they disapprove of EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE SOLUTION.

Firm but fair, with love, is the only workable solution, and it takes time. Slow and steady wins the race.

22 years eh? Look at you. A fine man. I ignored my critics, because they didn't know what they were talking about.

Now then. Raise your boy well. It really isn't that hard.

Spin

If you want a challenge this week, I have one for you.

When you find yourself criticizing, judging, or disapproving of somebody, ask yourself why, and keep asking why.

One of the things most of us try to do is to be polite. Good manners help the world go round, so we learn not to criticize other people. This can get quite complicated - I'm sure you've heard of somebody criticizing another for being critical. But generally we think before we speak. Some are better at it than others.

But our thoughts are another matter, they are our own business. So far we don't have the technology to read a person's thoughts, and even the simplest test - the lie detector - has been trashed as unreliable.

So we are quite free to think whatever we like. He's a fool. She's lying. We don't say it out loud, and we try to keep the expressions on our faces more in line with our words than our thoughts.

Therefore the only person who has any control over what goes on inside my head is me. I am mindful of this:

“Watch your thoughts, they become words;
watch your words, they become actions;
watch your actions, they become habits;
watch your habits, they become character;
watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

(For the origins of this, go here: http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/01/10/watch-your-thoughts)

You may argue that we are all used to keeping a tight reign on our thoughts, so we don't blurt them out, but that's not what it means. What we are thinking affects our behaviour when our words are insincere. 

I encourage tact, but I don't think it's enough. When you are constantly speaking dishonestly because your thoughts are very harsh and negative, a real conflict builds up. It leads to outbursts, and then........

But

What is inside a person's head will eventually spill out. One way or another.

So, a person who cares, who gives a damn about their character, and their role in society doesn't just keep their thoughts to themselves, they work on those thoughts. 

I remember standing in line in Homesense one day with a pepper grinder, and a couple in front of me had spent an awful lot of money on what I considered to be really frivolous purchases. They were dressed as if they were expecting to be photographed, and they were very loud. In my head I said "spoiled yuppies". And I wondered what made them tick. What their values were. I felt very negative about these people, despite the obvious fact that they were not doing me any harm at all, and I knew nothing about them. That's wrong. 

And it bothered me. What the hell was I doing judging people that way? I sat myself down and reminded myself that around the world are plenty of people who have to grind their pepper with two stones, and that's assuming they can afford pepper. To whom my mode of dress and ability to shop in malls would be seen as the lap of luxury. I managed to humble myself, but the experience stuck with me. 

There are lots of other examples I could offer you, the usual one is:

Do not judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes.

There are plenty of variations on that, the idea being that you don't know what causes a person to do what they do.

And this is why I invite you to ask yourself why. Why am I being harsh on that person? I know damn well there could be a good reason for his choices or his behaviour. I am not privy to that reason, but I am in full control of my own reaction to it all. Why does it bother me that he does that? It's not hurting me, why do I even care? 

Essentially what we do is poke our noses in. Even if we never say a word. There has to be a reason why we do that, and I happen to think it's really very useful to examine the reason behind it. It may not be pretty, but I think it's worth doing.