ﾠ My guess is that if someone can do a quantitative analysis, material critical of Obama's administration will show a disturbing tend to slide toward racial stereotype. And in a country where stereotypes of whites had equal weight and impact, that would be just fine--all's fair in war, and so forth. But we're in uncharted waters here, and everyone is just going to have to be a little extra careful ﾠ That doesn't mean not poking fun at, or lampooning the new POTUS. I've seen tons of good funny stuff about him. The cover of the new Mad Magazine, with Obama smoking a dozen cigarettes in the Oval office while juggling a dozen crisis, with the title "Obama: the first 100 minutes" was priceless. The Daily Show, MAD TV, SNL, and other shows have done it just fine. I suspect that the people who complain that they can't make fun of him are worried that they have to edit themselves too much...and that if they didn't, some racist stuff would come sliding right out. We're human. It's in us, people. We're trying to grow up as a culture, but conscious actions (like voting) are different from unconscious preferences (like...love scenes in movies, for instance?) ## Speaking of sensitivity...and I'm deliberately not saying "oversensitivity", the recent flap about Kate Winslet's movie "The Reader" is a perfect example. ﾠ WARNING: SPOILERS ## The film is set in 1950's Germany deals with a young man who, at the age of 15, has a summer fling with an older woman (Winslet). She is distant and controlling, and has him read to her before making love. After three months, she disappears. Years later, when in law school, he attends a field trip to a war crimes tribunal, where he recognizes his former lover, now accused of being a prison guard complicit in the murder of hundreds of Jews. Needless to say, this fucks him up royally. ﾠ There is a major story point that deals with her confession to being the leader of a group of prison guards, and authoring a document that the boy knows she could not have done: she was illiterate. Does he come forward with his information? What does it all mean? In the midst of a country trying desperately to come to grips with its evil actions, this little human story is actually quite well done. ﾠ And it has spawned a mini-controversy, Jews who believe that the film, by focusing on the perpetrators rather than the victims, is an apologia for Nazism. Or that it is saying that her illiteracy somehow mitigated her crimes. ﾠ The fact is, while I disagree, I understand how they feel. If within living memory, someone had tried to eradicate my people, I would be mighty, mighty touchy about how any depictions of those events were handled, especially considering that there are so many people who pretend to deny the Holocaust. Yes, that's what I said. I don't think most "deniers" really don't believe it. I think they're lying sacks of shit who want to make anti-Semitism more acceptable by casting doubt on the one event so huge, so repugnant, so awesomely, catastrophically evil that even people who don't like Jews are repelled by what the Nazis did. ﾠ Yes, the movie humanizes the face of evil. But it would be a grotesque mistake to do otherwise: we got bitch-slapped on 9/11, and a significant proportion of our population became willing to cast people even accused of being terrorists into Gulags to be tortured. That's what people do when they are frightened. That's what people do when they can define those tortured or killed or enslaved as "other." ﾠ Winslet's prison guard is a burned-out shell, a cipher. She took a job guarding people she probably didn't consider fully human, so that performance of her job was the highest moral imperative. Despite the fact that numerous characters speak with open loathing for her actions, the mere fact of suggesting that the situation was more complex than "evil Nazis" gets some people's hackles up. Probably especially for those who love Israel, but are disturbed about the morality of some of its actions. Moral ambiguity is a bitch. Service to a higher moral authority can cost you your life, your freedom...hell, even your job. ﾠ I've felt similar things every time I see a Civil War movie that omits the attitudes of enslaved black people...meaning 99% of them. Every time I hear apologists trying to explain how few Southerners owned slaves, slaves loved their masters, slavery would have ended anyway...all that crap, which boils down to: "those Southerners are my people. I have to believe they are good." And of course, they know full well that venomous racist would mirror their comments with very different intent. ﾠ I don't think it was the Nazis. There were hundreds of camps, all over Europe. People knew, and most of them didn't do a damned thing. It wasn't just the Germans. It was a tendency within human beings, within us as a species. And hell, I've seen human beings helping strangers more often than I've seen animals helping strange animals, so don't get me going on that. We hold ourselves to impossibly high standards...and so we should. ﾠ The negative result of those high standards is that we can't believe that we would do such things. Watching Winslet's awesome vulnerability in her role underscores her commonality with the rest of mankind. If we don't want another Holocaust...another Biafra...another 9/11... we have to stop pointing the finger, and seek to root out the evil within ourselves. ﾠ If we don't do that, no matter what we THINK we're doing, we're just laying the ground for the atrocities of the future. Hell, the Germans thought God was on their side, too. I'd give "The Reader" a B, but Winslet an "A" for her fearless, exquisitely measured performance. ## Will Smith's "Seven Pounds" got "Best picture" at the NAACP Image Awards. Considering the panning it got by white critics, the fact that it notably underperformed for a Will Smith movie, and the fact that it had Dat Old Debbo sex in it, shall we look at all of the possible reasons I can think of? 1) Pure coincidence. Nothing has anything to do with anything. 2) Black people tend to give "their own" a pass, being too forgiving of an unremarkable film. 3) Whites tend to have a flinch response to black sex. This is probably unconscious in most cases, so there will always be another explanation for why they didn't like it. ﾠ My best guess? Go for the answer that is universal, rather than attributing different characteristics to different groups: "members of a group will tend to be more supportive of members of their group, and less supportive of members of other groups. Much of this approval or disapproval will be subconscious, especially when there are cultural prohibitions against such attitudes." ﾠ I like that one. So...black people would tend to forgive flaws...a bit. And whites would tend to exaggerate flaws...to the exact same degree. Personally, I think that if Brad Pitt had a track record like Will Smith, and had done "Seven Pounds" it would have jumped across the 100 million mark. But there's no way to prove that, now is there? ﾠ Which should be of comfort to anyone who thinks I'm talking about them.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
"The Reader" (2008)
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Indigo Kiddies
ﾠ 1) Is there really an increase in autism? Much debate on this, and many think it's just that we're getting more diagnosis, not more cases. 2) My personal sense is, yes. There is something going on. I am seeing more "non-ordinary" people out and about. The hair on the back of my neck says that, just as obesity is increasing due to lifestyle changes, something is happening that increases the number of children whose minds work in a non-ordinary spectrum 3) This could be seen as a terrible problem: say, the reaction to increase in toxins and pollutants. Or something to do with media saturation. Or... 4) It could be a positive thing. Literally, the next step in human evolution, happening before our eyes. The trick here might be that our society is complex and open enough that these children, who in another time and place might have been considered resource drains (but in yet another considered Shamans and story-tellers), are in our society thought "special," and nurtured, even at great cost to the families. ﾠ That strikes me as an interesting possibility: that as we grow more humane and accepting, those with "different" abilities are not shunned or exposed, but nurtured. If, a thousand years from now, we see an increase in autism as the first step toward something amazing, we will have earned it, by our increase in compassion. ## ASD is very different from retardation in the sense that retardation means a reduction in capacity across the board, while ASD is more like a kid's brain shoving all their chips into one corner. Yes, there are problems, but there are also (often) compensatory abilities. I heard a suggestion that a subliminal awareness that this is happening helps explain the popularity of "X-Men" and "Harry Potter." Fun theory, at any rate. # "Coraline" comes achingly close to being an instant classic. Instead, it is merely the best movie I've seen this year, and GREAT children's theater. Every frame seethes with love, art, care, thought, intelligence, creativity. The stop-motion tale of a young girl who travels through a hidden door into another world is both familiar and strange. Based on the book by Neil Gaiman (which I confess I have not read) and directed by Henry "The Nightmare Before Chrismas" Selick, this is a genuine dark fantasy, a fairy-tale that realizes children don't need to see Bambi's mother hobble back on-screen with her leg in a sling. ﾠ Scary stuff, with some touches of sensuality that might make some of the adults uncomfortable. The kids will just laugh. I saw it in 3-D, and have to say that I never had the slightest feeling that they were pandering to the effects. Just a marvelous piece of film. An easy "A." ## Looks as if "The Sarah Conner Chronicles" isn't going to make it through the season. Too bad. I've got a mild thing for Summer Glau, and thought the show was going in interesting directions (humans becoming less human, while machines become more so). But it was down 27% from its previous ratings. Oh, well... ## Man, you have to be careful what you say in public, y'know? Terrance Howard leapt to Chris Brown's defense over the Rihanna beating. Later, he retracted it, saying he didn't know the facts in the case. Now "Smoking Gun" website has turned up Howard's own arrest on beating his ex-wife in 2001. Threatened her over the phone, stormed over to her house, broke her door, chased her through the house, grabbed her and punched her in the face at least twice. ﾠ That's just lower than whale shit. I have no idea if he sought counseling. I do know that if he sought it after the case became public, I have no faith that he genuinely wanted to change...just that he wanted the public to forgive him. In my other career as a stress management tech, I was asked to be part of a team helping a famous sports figure who had been publicly disgraced for something I think we'd all agree was very wrong. I can't be more specific without violating privacy, but I felt very uncomfortable about the whole thing. Frankly, I just don't believe that he is genuinely repentant. He just wants the public to love him again. ﾠ What he did is so repellent to me that I'm just not sure I could participate in the rehabilitation of his image. And the fact that I was so judgemental disturbs me, because as a healer, I should take a more enlightened position on such things. I guess. But we all have limits, and this man crossed one of mine. And I suppose I have to be honest about what I feel. But...and I ask this seriously...should a healer "mind read" about the intent of a potential client?
Thursday, February 12, 2009
We Won the 2009 NAACP Image Award!!!!
For "In the Night of the Heat." I'm exhausted. And stunned. And happy. Sorry if I've been a little stressed out lately. But, y'know...
I love you guys!
Steve
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Brown to Rihanna: "I'm going to kill you."
## The NAACP Image Awards are tomorrow. Tananarive is nominated for two awards, and I'm up for one. Black tie--I've got my tux on order. I don't know whether to be excited, or to maintain max control. I don't like having my heart jerked one way and another, but on the other hand, adrenaline is fun. Well...I'll try to maintain balance, and then let myself get swept away just a little. ### How many of you guys are on Facebook? Truth is that I kind of like it. MySpace never did it for me, but for some reason, Facebook impresses me. Just feels "warm" some how. Anyway, I'm there, and I'd love to make friends with any of you who are there as well. ## A warning for those committed to forward progress. When it comes to meditation and other stress relief, it is odd that the more stress you are under, the less likely you are to get massages, take soaks in the spa, stretch, meditate, or whatever. What happens is that your Sympathetic nervous system gets overheated, and it wants to believe that only more action will take care of the situation. That's the ego, killing you slowly. Growth requires rest and nutrients. If you are in a life situation demanding growth, continued massive action may SEEM like accomplishing something, but in essence you are guaranteeing that you will break down and never reach your ends. ﾠ The ego, which would "die" if you kept going forward, is laughing at you. You have to get quiet enough to hear it.
Sunday, February 08, 2009
The Party Line Sucks
Hmmm. I'm going to try to say this carefully, because I really don't want to step on anyone's raw nerves. At the same time, I have a commitment to tell the truth as I see it in this blog. And that means I have to walk a very careful line. Steve Perry recently (and not for the first time) asked me what I thought about the fact that a very healthy percentage of readers disagreed with me passionately, and vocally. Didn't that indicate that maybe I was just...wrong. ﾠ Well, yes, it does. How can I know? How can I tell whether I'm wrong, or they are? And what would be responsible for so many good, honest, well-intended people being wrong, while I'm right? 1) If I'm right, it wouldn't be because I'm smarter, or better. It could be because in some one sense, in some single arena, I've glimpsed something that is not well understood. I think we all do this at times, and every human advancement has been the result of people...some of them quite ordinary, glimpsing an unpopular or uncommon truth. That doesn't make me right about race, gender, sexual orientation, political orientations, or any of the other things I speak of. But it opens the door to the possibility that, yes, I could be right about something while 60% of the readers were wrong. ﾠ 2) But how could I know. Here's a test I use: if I find that people are continuously either forgetting what I actually said, exaggerating what I said, or downright misquoting what I said, it is reasonable for me to think that something is very wrong. If I say "blue" and the other person continuously says "red" then I am NOT at fault, not in the position of meaning "red" no matter how they jump up and down and yell. Except...once I realize that the word that means "red" to me means "blue" to them, I have the RESPONSIBILITY to grasp that they cannot hear what I am saying, and not necessarily due to anything originating on my side. That if I care, I have to try to figure out how to get them to understand "blue." And that, especially if I believe "blue" is critical to their health or welfare, I have to find a way to communicate it to them until they say something to the effect of: "blue? You mean blue?" THEN if they still disagree, at least there has actually been communication. I care about the quality of that communication. ﾠ 3) Yes, on certain subjects, I think I've perceived something that is mighty damned unpopular to talk about. Some things that the System, whether that system is political, social or biological, doesn't "want" us to grasp. This doesn't mean conscious plotting or planning on the part of some group of power brokers, whether you mark them out by race, gender, social class or whatever. What creates it? The fact that certain behaviors (polluting the environment, say) are terrible for people, but the causes (dumping garbage without paying for the consequences) can be good for corporations. Corporations reward the people who bring them money. So people who don't think about the consequences of dumping toxins, and are trying only to maximize profits ('think of the poor stockholders!") can, in their minds, be doing nothing but "good" but end up destructive as hell. ﾠ 4) Another tendency is that people, "all" people (oh, right, are you going to ask me if I mean 100% of people? No, I mean "a very high percentage" and you darn well know that's what I mean) want as much power as possible, combined with as little responsibility as possible. Gimme, gimme, gimme. If you don't believe me, just take a look at your opinion of whatever "other" group you are opposed to. Liberals think this of Conservatives and vice versa, like crazy. Not MY group, of course. But everyone else. Yeah, right. ﾠ 5) I've found that starting with the assumption that things are balanced...and then moving outward from there, produces better results than starting with the assumption that people are incredibly different, and then allowing individual cases to modify my opinion. In other words, racists start with the assumption that blacks and whites are hugely different, and when they meet individual members of that "other" group they slowly, very slowly begin to accept exceptions, dragging their feet to acknowledge equality for as long as they can. I drag mine in the opposite direction. Are there some very interesting evidences of differences in sport performance between blacks and whites? Yes. Do I accept that they are mostly genetic? No. Is it possible? Sure. But I'm mighty reluctant to go there, because it opens the door to a LOT of unpleasant stuff. It's not a blind spot: I'm perfectly aware I do it. ﾠ 6) The 10% asshole rule is accepted by almost everyone...for their own group. But when it comes to the "other" they start saying: "oh, 30% of whites are bigoted. Or blacks want something for nothing. Or men are oppressive. Or women are manipulative. Or liberals are godless, or Conservatives are heartless money-grubbers" Or whatever. ﾠ We rule, they drool. Want to know what I'd consider a good test of whether your attitude about a group is rational? ﾠ Could you have a rational discussion with someone with the opposite view. ﾠ A conservative who believes that liberals are good, decent people with some disagreements about how to make this country better can have a polite conversation with a liberal who believes that conservatives are the same. But...Michael Savage and Randi Rhodes? Lock 'em in a room and throw in a couple of knives. ﾠ I see nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong in the world that can't be explained by equal numbers of assholes on both side...but also equal numbers of angels. Different perspectives, different priorities, different modes of expression, different values and priorities, different starting points in the game, and so forth. ﾠ I have a friend of mixed blood who is prejudiced against black people. When I ask him a direct question: "do you believe that, on the whole, blacks and whites have equal capacity, and are of equal capacity morally and ethically--he CANNOT say "yes" or "no." What comes out is an avalanche of avoidance, shading and refusal to take responsibility for his own opinions. But every time he mentions race, it's something negative. Every time. I pay attention to stuff like that. ﾠ There are self-hating black people, Jews, gays, men, and women. We are not merely pressured by the world, but programmed from the cradle to accept certain things as being true. IF those things are not true, and they are pointed out...well, the pointers are at risk. There are plenty of women who believe women should stay in the home: and we rightfully suspect that many of them are so dominated by brutal husbands that they dare not speak the truth. And the opposite? Hell, kids, back in the sixties it was an open joke that the easiest way for a guy to get laid was to join the women's movement and rail against male domination. Both men and women, black and white, gay and straight: we all want to belong, to feel the minimum amount of pain and the maximum amount of pleasure. We all want to believe that whatever evil and darkness and irresponsibility there is in the world is "them" and not "us." ﾠ So I believe that about 10% of the world are assholes. And that that same percentage (overlapping but not the same people) are sexists, racists, homophobes, whatever. But about the same percentage are angels, actively advocating for the excluded "other." No...that's not true. Actually, I think about 11% are actively angels, which explains what I see as the slow but steady progress we're making as a species. ﾠ Someone asked: do I think that bad parents have to have bad children? Hell, no. I think children are not just incredibly resilient, but have a natural tendency to move away from pain and toward pleasure. And ALL of these things: racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever, ultimately create more pain than they are worth, regardless of the short-sighted men and women who try to defend those positions. ﾠ No one can convince me that racism is a positive thing, long-term, even though it can be a survival value short-term. No one can convince me that sexism is a positive thing. Women are 50% of our creative, intellectual and moral force. Repress them, and you will be out-competed by the groups that give them a greater voice in social action. Afghanistan is a perfect example: they had oppressed their women to the point that their infant mortality rate was soaring. They would HAVE to make an adjustment. Saudi Arabia is a freak. They produce no goods or services except for their vast natural resource, oil. So they can get away with having a society that could never compete, but for that. THEY can oppress their women...for a while. It's going to catch up with them. Everything always does. Unless you really don't believe that men and women, gay and straight, black and white are basically equal (if not precisely equivalent) you HAVE to believe that any other attitude will be ultimately crushed by one that uses every citizen to their maximum. ﾠ But while we're working toward that, we have to deal with the fact that within a society, every group has its mythology that it is oppressed, that the other group is to blame for everything, and poor little me. ﾠ Is there some reality? Sure. As groups, yes. But until I see more personal responsibility among blacks in poverty, I won't accept that whites are responsible for them having unprotected sex and contracting AIDS. When I see gay friends contract HIV (which just happened again, dammit) I bleed. And I want a cure. But I also want to scream "why the hell didn't you use a fucking rubber, damn it?" Especially if I've had to hear too many gay guys bragging about unprotected sex as an extreme sport. Shit, they're dying, and they're still blaming America for not producing a cure. Truth. But also the worst kind of lie. ﾠ What do I make of all of this? If I say 10% of people are assholes 90% of the time, then I have to accept the possibility that most of the rest of us are assholes 10% of the time. Me, too. But if people criticise what I say without actually addressing what I've said, and no matter how many times I point out "blue" they point to "red," then I believe I have the right to suspect that I've popped off one of the cultural filters that keep us going as a species...but also weigh us down and hold us back. ﾠ I've talked to my wife and daughter about the precise issues that caused so much controversy on this board. The fact that they agreed with me proves nothing. It's just agreement. But what came out of that conversation with my daughter was a desperate plea, from me, to watch me more carefully, to be one of my bullshit detectors. To feel not just the right, but the obligation to call me if I am inconsistent in my attitudes or actions. I feel like I'm treading terra incognita to a degree here. I can make black audiences mad if I talk about race...but piss off white audiences, too. Gay audiences and straight. Male audiences and female. Fuck it. I've never really had a place to live, never really had a home or a "group" to belong to. I've been walking alone, in that sense, all my life, and I can keep on going. ﾠ My only family are those who have a similar commitment to truth, and balance. I put these words out to express myself, and speak to those who kept telling me they wanted to know how I think, not because I decided I wanted to be a teacher. The more honest I am about what I see, the more shit I get...and that is appropriate, I suppose. ﾠ But if I really love truth, I can't take my words back because they hurt. I am enough of a softie to not want to hurt people. I try to be honest enough to admit openly that I HAVE to be wrong at least 10% of the time, no matter how carefully I check my facts. ﾠ But...what if I'm right? What if our desires for community and family and intimacy, for sex and safety, have been used against us from the beginning? What if all that mattered was increase of family and tribe, and EVERYTHING else was secondary? And that now, as we awaken from that dream, we have to claw our way through every illusion that kept us in dream? If awakening from the belief that we did not all collaborate in creating this world, rather than blaming each other, requires that we accept all of the guilt, blame, shame and responsibility we have tried to foist off on others? Forgive ourselves AND others, and close the door to the past? ﾠ What if our survival depends upon that? Then it is vital to communicate until we are actually repeating back each other's words, (a sort of cultural Talking Stick) and not hallucinating that we understand the meaning. Otherwise, it's pretty much a cultural epileptic fit, with the only corpus collosum we've got...language...misfiring massively, and making the body human twitch and lurch instead of move forward smoothly. ﾠ My insistence on balance means some interesting things. For instance, that blacks as a group will never quite catch up with whites. Separate is never equal. We might cross-breed into a blended society, such that the question is moot. We can create a society in which individual black people can, with 101% effort, get the result that whites get from 99%. That's about as good as it will ever get, and when you look at the scope of human history, that's pretty damned good. ﾠ Will women get equal pay for equal work? Have equal representation in government and business? I believe so. Will it make them equal? No. It will actually put them in a SUPERIOR position, because while you can legislate and effect those things you can consciously see, you can't legislate the advantages they have--just as Aikido techniques are harder to understand than Karate. Generation of force is visible. Negative space is invisible, even though they are equivilent in power, and in fact must work together to move to the next level. ﾠ And you know what? That's all right with me. I'll vote for any equal rights bill you put in front of me, because I'd rather be too fair than not fair enough. But please don't step to me with this "equality" crap. Only alpha humans drive movements for social change. And alphas don't want "equality", they want to win. They want to be at the top of the hierarchy. And I've heard just as many women want men to accept their definitions of what is "right" and "appropriate" as I've ever heard men saying that THEIR position on the world is correct. I've been in enough gay parties to hear their jokes about how their culture is superior. Enough black gatherings to hear them laugh about athletic and moral superiority. Was in enough women's homes as a child to hear the women laughing about how childlike, unperceptive and easily manipulated men were. ﾠ I've never seen a group that doesn't do it, and THAT is why I feel safer rejecting all of that crap than accepting any of it at all. I KNOW that's going to make me wrong at times. It has to. ﾠ But it seems my only way of winding through the minefield of every damn group saying they're the ones with the truth. I think that individuals have truth. Groups are full of shit. ﾠ The party line, ANY party line, sucks.
Friday, February 06, 2009
Too Old For This Shit
Autism ﾠ I'm currently doing research into autistic children for a project, and have a few questions for this group. 1) There seems to be a disturbing rise in autism cases, worldwide. Does anyone have a pet theory about this? 2) Some of you may have autistic people in your family, or circle. I would appreciate any comments or observations about them. Especially things you have noticed that you've never heard discussed in media. 3) What media depictions of autism do you find offensive? ## There's a new martial arts flick called "Chocolate" from the same team that brought Muay Thai phenom Tony Jaa to the screen. Only "Chocolate's" star is a woman, a Tae Kwon Do expert who trained for five years (!) for this film. I've seen coming attractions, and she's pretty incredible. If anyone checks this out, let me know, would you? ## Does anyone but me think that the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot, complaining about the 500K cap on executive salaries for companies that have taken bailout money? I mean, how in the living hell do they expect the average person to have any sympathy for that position, even if, in some way, it makes sense? It feels like a trap they're stepping into. ## I have NEVER felt Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness to match what kettlebell juggling produces, even at a fairly light weight. Good Lord. I can only assume that if I was twenty years younger it wouldn't hit as hard. I'm upping the amount of yoga I'm doing to see if that helps, but if it doesn't, I'll just have to drastically decrease the weight. # Speaking of that, I ran across another odd mental glitch I have to look at. Fifteen years ago, I knew that I had to do yoga every day, in order for my body to work the way I want it to. But the voices in my head do everything they can to talk me out of it. It is so strong, and so persistent, that it actually frightens me. ﾠ From the perspective of my chosen world view, I think I'm hearing the serpentine whisper of my Death drive. We need both, you know: our drive to life, and our urge to destroy ourselves. An excess of Life and we hide from our fears, cowering in the shadows, afraid to change, because true change means the shattering of the ego shell. An excess of Death and we take terrible risks, push ourselves too hard, sprint when we should amble. In this instance, what I think I see is an odd collaboration. Hell...all of this is trying to put words and labels to things that really have no distinct parts. As long as I remember that, these analogies hold. The instant we start thinking: "gee! There, right there on the sonogram, I see my Death Drive! And there's my Inner Child..." etc. An overdose of literalism and the whole thing devolves to puree of bat shit. ﾠ That said, if I don't do yoga, the exercise tears my body apart. My body starts remembering that I'm almost 57. Frankly, it takes about one minute a day of yoga to turn back the clock one year. So...if I want my body to function as if I'm 30, I need a dead minimum of 27 minutes a day, right? And that's just to break even. I probably also need another minute for every minute of high-intensity exercise (sprinting, weight training, etc.) If I don't, the body starts aching. Joints start hurting. My sleep gets interrupted. And the voices in my head hiss: "you're too old for this shit. Why not just relax, and die, like you were programmed to do..?" ﾠ What it uses is the fact that yoga isn't "exercise" in the traditional sense. So, the voice says: "you're a big bad martial artist. You don't need that sissy stuff. You can just do joint rotations, and other sports-oriented Active Recovery stuff. Other athletes don't need yoga. What kind of wuss are you?" ﾠ Man oh man...it works. It's worked over and over again, even though I KNOW what its up to. I'm promising again to get back to a daily yoga routine (the 30 minute Ashtanga routine on the "Yoga Short Forms" DVD works very nicely). I wonder how long it will be before I con myself out of this again. And if I injure myself, it is my family that will suffer for my lack of aliveness, not just me. I have to stop listening to that voice. I am DEFINITELY too old for that shit.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Where am I inconsistent?
1) Men are responsible when women act out. Then...are women responsible when men act out? Or are you saying only men are responsible for the problems of the world, since almost all of them are caused by human beings acting up? And if you are, isn't that just a sneaky way of hiding a superiority complex inside the appearance of "sensitivity"? 2) My flat-out, plain spoken position is: neither men or women are superior mentally, ethically, or morally. Period. I do think there are some differences, but that the differences even out. I have a sneaking suspicion that those who most strongly criticise my position could not say that.: that they, in essence, are placing women ABOVE men. PLEASE prove me wrong, folks: do you think we're equal, or not? Please state your opinion plainly, without waffling or avoidance. I'd like to know what I'm dealing with. 3) "you're another man who is sure he knows better than women do how women should be leading their lives." Excuse me? When in the world did I say I thought I knew better? a) My attitude about these things was primarily SHAPED by women. b) I never said I knew better than women. I said I have the right to comment on the behaviors of others...which is the exact same thing that every one of you does, every day, unless your behavior is unlike every human being I've ever met. The fact that we disagree is the reason its most important to have the discussion. 4) I want to control women? I've stated directly that I wouldn't want to pass laws about this stuff. I speak of personal responsibility and balance, and how that relates to human beings. Some of those behaviors are based on gender. Again, I've never met anyone who limits their comments about the world to those of "their own group." 5) I want only men to have personal freedom? Really? This is just nonsense. When I say that I believe men have more responsibility for social security, I'm saying that in a very real sense, it is their obligation to DIE. Where the hell is the freedom? If that isn't the ultimate revocation of rights, I don't know what is. 6) Dan is right: it is more useful for the members of a given group to comment on that group. But it is ALMOST as useful for members of the "other" to comment, because we're all in this together. I understand the reaction: when (I forget who, but a Conservative white male) made comments about family values in the black community being a source of serious concern, I was disappointed that so many blacks called him racist. When Bill Cosby did it, he was attacked as "out of touch." In other words, race really had nothing to do with it. Race was a convenient way to try to apply social pressure to silence a voice. 7) I'm using the "some of my best friends" fallacy? Is it a fallacy to think that if you have close friends who are a part of group X, you have the right to consider your opinion of X informed? Well, not if you've actually spoken to the X's about the issues, and your opinion is in alignment with what a large proportion of them think. Not at all. And like I said, any white person with 10% of the experience with blacks that I've had with women--listening to their opinions, living with them, reading their words, etc.--would be in my mind, extremely entitled to an opinion. Never have I said that "I know better than women." What's really being objected to is that my opinion is not that of women on the Left. ﾠ An example: I say that blacks are more responsible than whites for what happens to their families in the inner cities. If I was white and saying that, people would cry "racism." If I was a woman, saying that women have more responsibility for what they will spend nine months nurturing in their wombs, I'd be considered "Conservative." But because I'm a man, this position is thought to originate in my gender. ﾠ Tell me, please: is this position, in any way, inconsistent with my other positions? I don't think I've changed my way of looking at the world one jot because I happen to have a Willie. Please point out a single way that this is inconsistent: you'd be doing me a big favor. ## In my own life, I've taken personal responsibility for children of single mothers, driving hundreds of miles to provide father figure input, flying them to California to spend the summer with me, waking up at six in the morning to drive them to martial arts classes. I've not been a passive observer here. More to the point, in my circle there are several women who have made what I consider "stupid, childish, damaging" decisions to have children without a man. I never rejected a single one of them, and often rolled up my sleeves, sighed, and pitched in. ﾠ Now...what about men? I've had friends who abandoned the children they made. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM IS NO LONGER A FRIEND. I kicked them from my life. I could no longer respect them at all, in any way. They are dead to me. ## If I'm unfair, I feel I'm reflecting life, which is not fair. It just "is." I know of no culture, anywhere, who judges a woman MORE harshly for leaving her husband to be beaten by muggers as it would judge a man for leaving his wife. Not fair. Just is. And I know of no culture, anywhere, that judges a man MORE harshly for having a child out of wedlock than it does a woman. And since nothing is ever really "equal" what you have is a situation of: judging who more harshly creates the more stable society? It's never right down the line. It's always: this situation, that characteristic, that responsibility...etc. ﾠ No science fiction writer to my knowledge has ever had the guts to try to write a book or story in which there is a society in which males have MORE responsibility for the children and LESS responsibility for defense than females. I've never seen it, and if anyone out there has, please point it out to me. I'm merely saying what I see in nature, and in societies world-wide. ﾠ I have ZERO sympathy for adult parents, male or female, in comparison with what I feel for their children. Zero. Parents who make children but would not be willing to die to protect them, to sacrifice for them, to give up their illusions for them...are children at best and lower than animals at worst. In terms of time, energy, and resources, it hits mothers harder than fathers. Personal responsibility says that you must be aware, alert, and capable of making the hard decisions in direct proportion to the impact a BAD decision will have on your life. The more freedom you want, the more responsibility you must have. ﾠ ## ﾠ No one on this blog is trying to silence anything, but I ask you to note the same reactions being used. If I'd had Tananarive post the exact same words, you might have disagreed, but she wouldn't be accused of sexism...and you may take my word for it that our attitudes are quite similar. Because I have a penis, I'm trying to oppress women? Control them? Give men the right to run around and do anything they want? I don't know who you're talking to, but it isn't me. I speak of human adulthood, with the road leading there involving: ﾠ 1) Responsibility for our bonded sexual relationships. 2) Responsibility for our bodies 3) Responsibility for our financial interactions with our communities. ﾠ Men who don't take responsibility for the children they make are beneath my contempt, off my map of human adults, lower than whale shit. In no way, shape, or form am I letting them off the hook. My only concern is for the safety of the children, girls and boys. Period. Because it is their health that will build the next generation. ﾠ Everything I'm saying flows from my basic principles: healthy people can find healthy relationships. Healthy parents create healthy children. Not 100% true, but the principles I live by. What the hell follows from this? What conclusion can I come to except that a woman who CHOOSES to start a family without a man (or woman) in her life is CHOOSING to have dysfunctional children, because she herself has no idea what health is? ﾠ Someone accused me of telling women to stay in abusive relationships? Are you kidding? I've been a part of rescue teams moving mothers OUT of such relationships. You are reading things into this that I never put there. Those women started by TRYING to have, HOPING to have, a healthy relationship. It didn't work. ESPECIALLY if she has children, she has an obligation to leave. ﾠ That is not the same thing at all as deciding "it's time to have a baby" and getting knocked up. I honestly believe that you are hearing my words through warped filters, perhaps thinking that I'm trying to set up some scenario where men get to screw around all they want, and the finger of blame is pointed at women. What punishment would I like to impose on men who father children and don't take care of them? ﾠ For the good of society, I'd probably suggest a multiple-tier approach: 1) Socially, they should be shamed as scum. 2) Financially, they should be legally forced to support those children financially and emotionally. 3) If they are unwilling to support them in this way, some kind of a chain-gang scenario, where they are imprisoned and forced to work for their food and shelter, producing enough excess money to go to their children, is not out of the question. ﾠ But remember: I suggested no legal punishment for women who CHOOSE to become pregnant out of wedlock. I suggested that their behavior was immature and damaging to their future children...on average. The fact that there are (many) individual cases where it worked out well doesn't change the fantastic damage I've seen in my own community due to such behavior. ## When you accuse someone of trying to control women, that I think I know what's good for a woman better than women do (which women? Women who agree with you? You know damned well there are plenty of women who agree with me. You just don't like it that I have a "Conservative" attitude about this.) that I want women to stay with abusive husbands, and so on...you are exercising exactly the same freedom that I am, to express your values and beliefs in a public forum. So long as they are expressed politely, I think it furthers social evolution. So, I guess, thanks for trying to tear me a new asshole. And you white folks out there are still free to comment on black people. As you've always done.
