Sunday, 10 January 2016

Week 2 of the Challenge

Apparently, 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.

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.

Part One

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.

However, you only have to look at me to see that I eat too much anyway. So, clearly, I need to stop before 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.

Sport.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.......

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.

Part Two

Make someone a birthday or celebration cake.

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.

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.

Part Three

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.

This. Is. Hell.

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?


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.


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. 

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. 




Saturday, 9 January 2016

Kindness and Mischief




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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Somewhere in the middle is sanity.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So, why mischief?



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. 

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. 




Sunday, 3 January 2016

Week 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".

Here are the two lists:

http://brightside.me/article/how-to-change-your-life-for-the-better-in-just-one-month-505/

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/12/52-fun-things-try-a-new-one-each-week-of-the-year/

I have back-up copies of both in case the pages are removed for any reason.

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.

So.

Week One, Part One - Getting up earlier.

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.

Week One, Part Two - Writing a Letter

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 different. 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.

Week One, Part Three - My Personal Challenge

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.

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.

Wednesday, 30 December 2015

Life

Here's an interesting one.

Creationists poke fun at scientists by saying things like "so....there was nothing...and it exploded" and "life from nothing, ha ha".

The objection is that, to the creationist, life from non-life ("nothing") is a ridiculous concept.

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.

Abiogenesis

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:

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2015/03/researchers-may-have-solved-origin-life-conundrum

Of course, it could be completely wrong, but something along these lines is quite plausible.

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.

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.

In his version everything is created by God from...............nothing.

So what's the difference?

Well, according to scientists, first of all, when they talk about the origin of the universe and the origin of life, these are two different things. 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.

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.

There are other options, of course. I'll come back to that, but for now let's consider these two versions..

Cosmology

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.

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?

And that question exists no matter what your version of origins are. As do many others.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Evolution

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Tuesday, 29 December 2015

Proselytizers

Years 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I tried to explain what the problem was, but I know for a fact they never understood. Or were they just being stubborn?

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".

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.

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.

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.

You have absolutely no idea what I need.

You certainly do not know me better than I do.

I am fine as I am.

If you need Jesus, that's great, you keep him.

If you need saving, go and do it. With my blessings. I don't need saving. Stop telling me that I do.

IT IS REALLY ANNOYING.

No. You don't "know". It's your belief. It makes no sense to me whatsoever.

No, please don't repeat yourself. I've heard it all.

As I age, I become (I hope) increasingly compassionate/kind/tolerant. That's the plan, anyway.

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.

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.

So let me be clear.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.




Monday, 28 December 2015

Holy Shitheads


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No, I'm not anti anything except anti harm. If I am "rude" about something to do with religion, it's because I see it as harmful. No harm? No problem.

No, I don't think one religion is better than another. There are things I personally prefer in whatever religion. Which is not the same thing. I am liberal minded, so naturally I don't like conservative religious stuff. Duh.

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.

Monday, 21 December 2015

Have a Cool Yule

Today 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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.

None of this is breaking news, I might add. The Christian church was always 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Welcome back sun.

Friday, 27 November 2015

Sacrifice

Something a bit different today.

I shared a meme on Facebook.


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.

There are two ways to look at this, and we'll do both of them.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Therefore, the meaning of the story - its purpose - was known to its writer (s). 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why? What possible use could God have for humans performing rituals?

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.

Nevertheless, these stories are still told. Reasons are debated. Excuses are made. Apologists smirk. Non-believers smirk back.

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.



Friday, 20 November 2015

Calm Down

It'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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

So how to deal with it?

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.

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 they are at a disadvantage, 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.

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.

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 born and raised without ever knowing love and peace. Think about that. Think how bloody awful that must be.

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.

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.

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.

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.


Sunday, 15 November 2015

Today, 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.

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.

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 suddenly 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.

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.

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.

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.


.....and then we sat up and took notice. But some still want to send them back there!

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.

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 got it yet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980

Friday, 13 November 2015

Intolerance

Here's a thought for you today. What makes people intolerant?

Perhaps we need to define what that means, first of all. Here's the dictionary definition.

in·tol·er·ant
ˌinˈtäl(ə)rənt/
adjective
  1. not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one's own.
    "he was intolerant of ignorance"

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

And this applies to all areas where intolerance occurs.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


It's why threats work, especially vague ones. It's why propaganda is so incredibly powerful.

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.


Wednesday, 11 November 2015

Pondering The Negative Side of Normal

People 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

People do this because it saves effort. It's too much work to consider things, to compare, to rationalize, and above all to question.

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.

Our culture is absurd.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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......

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.

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.

But you had to offer them tea.

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.

All I ever did to upset people was refuse tea.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Well-behaved women seldom make history."

- Laurel Thatcher Ulrich

Sunday, 8 November 2015

The Loneliness of Authenticity

I'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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html

I expect discussion, but I'll understand if you don't.

I'll return to the topic of authenticity later in the week.

Thursday, 5 November 2015

Arguing Against Yourself

It'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.

WHAT?

No really.

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.

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.

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.

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 (http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0143116649). I haven't yet read Bill Nye's book on the topic, but I'm told http://www.amazon.com/Undeniable-Evolution-Creation-Bill-Nye/dp/1250074223 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2011/mar/08/daniel-craig-drag-international-womens-day-video

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.

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 not enough. 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.

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 first 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.

Meanwhile, they fight a concept in their heads which is not reality.

The anti-feminists fight a concept of feminism, which is not representative of feminism.
The lunatic fringe of feminism fight a concept of men, which is not representative of men.
The anti-Muslims fight a concept of Muslims, which is not representative of Muslims.
The lunatic fringe of Muslims fight a concept of the west, which is not representative of the west.

And so on. They are all arguing against their own warped, weird ideas which were never the thing itself. This applies to so much.

Misunderstandings of the group or thing you oppose. Why do you oppose it? Because you don't understand it.

You are free to oppose anything you please, but if you do so based on misunderstanding, it becomes ridiculous.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Maybe if they took the time to learn.........