In the wake of the devastation Hurricane Sandy left in NYC (where I still have some friends I have not heard from yet) and its continuing effects further inland, and with the ongoing political battle still raging with only a few days left till the election, I've been thinking a lot about the nature of society, and the mostly unspoken contracts implied by being a part of that.
When humans, or, indeed, any creatures, join into a group, it is with the understand -- an unwritten social contract -- that the purpose of the group is to protect the weak and the young, and to fill gaps. You wouldn't want a group that was made up solely of food providers and no members capable of watching for and protecting from predators as that would leave the group wholly at the mercy of any stronger group passing by. So that social contract comes into play: You protect me, and I'll feed you.
As the animals involved get more sophisticated, or the groups get larger, so does the social contract: there are more people to do things, and more things that need doing, so jobs get more complex and specialized. A larger, more sophisticated group has different needs from a smaller group. You'll have part of the group taking care of the domesticated animals, some growing crops, hunting and fishing, taking care of children, making sure there is shelter or water, or...the list could go on. But that basic social contract is there -- everyone has a role, a task, a skill or trade they can provide, and in exchange, others in the group provide for other needs.
As our society has grown even larger and more complex, we've developed less of a need for everyone to be involved in something practical and materially rewarding, and have moved to a model where some people are able to create things purely to give pleasure to others -- music, art, dance -- or to provide a more abstract service -- education, for example. This makes a basic barter system more difficult -- I can't offer a meal to my favorite author in exchange for a book, or offer to clothe my children's teachers in exchange for a year's education. So we created money as a way to sort of keep track of "favors" owed or collected upon. And then we agreed to all give a portion of our own earnings to a specific group of citizens to be disbursed to people whose jobs benefit the entire group as a whole, rather than on an individual level -- taxes which are used to pay teachers, police, firefighters, etc. Additionally, some of that money goes to assist those who are unable to work, for whatever reason, or who have incomes insufficient to provide for their families. Yes, there are people who take advantage of these systems, but overwhelmingly, the people benefiting from social welfare programs like food stamps, WIC, Medicaid & other public assistance are people without other options. They are elderly on strict pensions that would have been enough the decade or more ago when they retired, but rising costs of living and extended life spans have made that money not stretch as far as it might have. They are people who do necessary unpleasant jobs for others, but are not paid enough to keep up with (again) the rising cost of living. They are young families having to choose between food or shelter or childcare; single parents coping with the loss of an income and/or a spouse...they are people who, not that long ago, would have been cared for by a larger family-group that is currently unable or unwilling to do so.
If you look at money as a representation of favors collected, it is easy to see where some people are breaking the "You help me and I'll help you" bedrock of society. It is one thing to set aside favors against a day of need. It is another entirely to hoard those favors with no intention of ever repaying them. To refuse to contribute to society through taxes, to plan to eliminate public assistance, to suggest that citizens do not need protection or education -- those are in direct contradiction to the very idea of living in a society that allows for an external, non-barter system of favors. If each of your dollars were a product -- food, stone, wood, animal, cloth -- what would you DO with it? Would you keep it until it rotted, just so you would not have to trade it to your neighbor? And then to do that in the name of "Christianity" -- when Christ was a proponent of helping the less fortunate, of sharing what you have with those who might need the part that you cannot use -- that is the rankest of hypocrisy.
And to support someone who wishes to remove those public assistants that you yourself have made use of in the past? I can only hope that either your candidate does not win, or that if he does, you never need to make use of those services.
Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
True Confessions of a SAHM: I'm not an Idiot!
I had an amazingly nice phone conversation today, with the doctor I took VelcroBoy to for a diagnosis (aside: he has ADD -- no hyperactivity to contend with, just attention deficit. Which almost makes it sound like a bank account; as if it were possible to simply deposit more attention...) Anyway.
Usually, when I take one of the kids to the clinic for whatever... when I would take my hubby to his appointments after his surgery last fall... pretty much anytime, ever, I have to spend time with a professional person, whether it's as a customer/client/patient or simply as a person, it seems like the moment they find out I'm a SAHM, they assume my brain was disengaged at infancy and I'm less capable of understanding complex ideas like what they *do* all day than a five-year-old.
The worst offenders? Moms and men over 50.
I can understand the men. I mean, there are still societal conventions in place urging men to treat women like Delicate Flowers who need special, kid-glove, cotton-wrapped handling. And men of A Certain Age were pretty much drowned in that mentality from a young age, so they're at a disadvantage. Many of them still have difficulty coping with the idea that women are, in fact, capable of deep, rational thought. They don't exactly get a pass on this one, but I'm less likely to let my prickles out.
The women, on the other hand? No.
Just.
No.
Y'know what? Maybe I don't have a degree. Maybe I don't have a whole STRING of letters after my name, or a fancy engraved nameplate on the door of my office. Hell, my "office" is the most comfortable chair in my living room, plus a storage ottoman and a kitty condo (don't judge. It's a convenient height for my tea). The thing is, the lack of those superficial outward signs of privilege (yes, even if you were a scholarship student, you were privileged enough to receive that scholarship, weren't you?) don't mean a thing. I don't have a degree, officially, but that doesn't mean I don't possess the knowledge. I grew up in a lab while my mother was doing the research for her dissertation -- my mom the PhD. I pretty much didn't bother in most of my science classes throughout school because I already knew the material. Mom's a bit of a bookworm (the attic and the living room are crammed full, and that doesn't count the foot-high currently-reading stack by her bed, her home office, her work office, or the overflow in the basement) so even through two years of being a college student myself there were very few books I was reading for the first time -- or even had to actually purchase -- for any of my literature classes. I remember reading medical journals for no particular reason in my teens (ok, they helped me fall asleep. What? Is truth!)
So, yeah. I may not have quite as many years of official training for some career or another, but that does not actually mean I don't understand what's going on when you talk to me.
Ironically, many of these people would give me a pass if I were homeschooling my kids for religious reasons -- I know a few families who do this, and, frankly, I know the way they spell. Their kids are going to be in TROUBLE. Not to mention narrow-minded, but that's a whole 'nother argument. Oh, or if I were a very obviously hippie-dippie Earth Mother type, or otherwise "artistic." Or if I had a job, but lost it, and decided that, given the way the economy is, SAHM-ing was a more graceful acceptance of defeat in the job market, thus choosing to leave the Real Jobs So The Men Can Have Them, There's A Good Girl. (Which, just... GRRRRRR.)
Anyway, I was impressed, because the particular doctor I spoke to today chose not to speak down to me. She spoke to me as if she expected me to be perfectly capable of understanding her if she used multi-syllabic words. She expected me to be capable of asking questions if I didn't understand something she said. She was, quite frankly, amazing! And you don't find amazing like that all that often in the military health-care system.
Usually, when I take one of the kids to the clinic for whatever... when I would take my hubby to his appointments after his surgery last fall... pretty much anytime, ever, I have to spend time with a professional person, whether it's as a customer/client/patient or simply as a person, it seems like the moment they find out I'm a SAHM, they assume my brain was disengaged at infancy and I'm less capable of understanding complex ideas like what they *do* all day than a five-year-old.
The worst offenders? Moms and men over 50.
I can understand the men. I mean, there are still societal conventions in place urging men to treat women like Delicate Flowers who need special, kid-glove, cotton-wrapped handling. And men of A Certain Age were pretty much drowned in that mentality from a young age, so they're at a disadvantage. Many of them still have difficulty coping with the idea that women are, in fact, capable of deep, rational thought. They don't exactly get a pass on this one, but I'm less likely to let my prickles out.
The women, on the other hand? No.
Just.
No.
Y'know what? Maybe I don't have a degree. Maybe I don't have a whole STRING of letters after my name, or a fancy engraved nameplate on the door of my office. Hell, my "office" is the most comfortable chair in my living room, plus a storage ottoman and a kitty condo (don't judge. It's a convenient height for my tea). The thing is, the lack of those superficial outward signs of privilege (yes, even if you were a scholarship student, you were privileged enough to receive that scholarship, weren't you?) don't mean a thing. I don't have a degree, officially, but that doesn't mean I don't possess the knowledge. I grew up in a lab while my mother was doing the research for her dissertation -- my mom the PhD. I pretty much didn't bother in most of my science classes throughout school because I already knew the material. Mom's a bit of a bookworm (the attic and the living room are crammed full, and that doesn't count the foot-high currently-reading stack by her bed, her home office, her work office, or the overflow in the basement) so even through two years of being a college student myself there were very few books I was reading for the first time -- or even had to actually purchase -- for any of my literature classes. I remember reading medical journals for no particular reason in my teens (ok, they helped me fall asleep. What? Is truth!)
So, yeah. I may not have quite as many years of official training for some career or another, but that does not actually mean I don't understand what's going on when you talk to me.
Ironically, many of these people would give me a pass if I were homeschooling my kids for religious reasons -- I know a few families who do this, and, frankly, I know the way they spell. Their kids are going to be in TROUBLE. Not to mention narrow-minded, but that's a whole 'nother argument. Oh, or if I were a very obviously hippie-dippie Earth Mother type, or otherwise "artistic." Or if I had a job, but lost it, and decided that, given the way the economy is, SAHM-ing was a more graceful acceptance of defeat in the job market, thus choosing to leave the Real Jobs So The Men Can Have Them, There's A Good Girl. (Which, just... GRRRRRR.)
Anyway, I was impressed, because the particular doctor I spoke to today chose not to speak down to me. She spoke to me as if she expected me to be perfectly capable of understanding her if she used multi-syllabic words. She expected me to be capable of asking questions if I didn't understand something she said. She was, quite frankly, amazing! And you don't find amazing like that all that often in the military health-care system.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Food for Thought
I know there are a lot of jokes about Chinese food, but the truth is, I kind of love the fortune cookie part of going out for Chinese. The Horde and I went out to the local buffet at the request of DinoBoy (his party was today, although his actual birthday is Monday). The Girl-child and I got some pretty basic pabulum, nothing special, but the boys both got "Food for thought" fortunes. I love those -- some random bit of truth that forces you to think about yourself and the people around you. You especially get that effect when there's a smallish child self-aware enough to ask, "What does that even MEAN?" and you have to try to explain this concept of philosophy or ethics or culture or whatever to them.
DinoBoy's fortune read "We judge others by actions; we judge ourselves by intentions." I really really love this one. It's a concept I sometimes struggle to get across to others -- my kids or my DH -- that when someone is hurting because of your words, or because your words don't match your actions, or simply don't SEEM to to this person outside of you, it really doesn't matter what you THINK or FEEL or think you're putting out there. Intentions are well and good, but we are the only ones who can really know our own intentions. I might *think* I understand my husband's, but I can't really know for sure; all I can do is judge to the best of my ability.
That's a hard concept to teach a kid: the idea that sometimes, you can say or do something intending it as a kindness, but that it doesn't always appear that way to the person you're trying to help. What to you may seem a simple offer of help or support may rub the wrong way or play on fears you don't know about and come across to the other person as a judgment on them, or an attempt on your part to show them up and make them feel inferior.
It's easy to assume that because WE know what we intend, that others will, as well. It's much harder to remember that they're not seeing those intentions; and that everyone filters other people's words and actions through a lens built on their own experiences and insecurities.
VelcroBoy's fortune was "The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others." I like that. It's fairly simple and straightforward. If you tell someone X is the way to get to what you want, and you're not doing X, then why should they listen to you? And if X is the path then why are you not on it yourself? Although I think it's more simple than that, even. It's the antithesis of the old saw, "Do as I say, not as I do." That one's a particular trap for parents, I've found; one I'm trying not to fall into. There's a part of me that wants to avoid chores on weekends, while telling the kids to do theirs, and I recognize that that's a form of hypocrisy. Of course, at the same time, if I'm doing my chores, I can't make sure they do theirs. And goodness knows when they're at school I have a hard time following my stated household rule of "Do the things that NEED to be done before doing the things we WANT to do." Especially when there are new books to read.
And on that note...I have books to read! Catch you later!
DinoBoy's fortune read "We judge others by actions; we judge ourselves by intentions." I really really love this one. It's a concept I sometimes struggle to get across to others -- my kids or my DH -- that when someone is hurting because of your words, or because your words don't match your actions, or simply don't SEEM to to this person outside of you, it really doesn't matter what you THINK or FEEL or think you're putting out there. Intentions are well and good, but we are the only ones who can really know our own intentions. I might *think* I understand my husband's, but I can't really know for sure; all I can do is judge to the best of my ability.
That's a hard concept to teach a kid: the idea that sometimes, you can say or do something intending it as a kindness, but that it doesn't always appear that way to the person you're trying to help. What to you may seem a simple offer of help or support may rub the wrong way or play on fears you don't know about and come across to the other person as a judgment on them, or an attempt on your part to show them up and make them feel inferior.
It's easy to assume that because WE know what we intend, that others will, as well. It's much harder to remember that they're not seeing those intentions; and that everyone filters other people's words and actions through a lens built on their own experiences and insecurities.
VelcroBoy's fortune was "The best way to succeed in life is to act on the advice you give to others." I like that. It's fairly simple and straightforward. If you tell someone X is the way to get to what you want, and you're not doing X, then why should they listen to you? And if X is the path then why are you not on it yourself? Although I think it's more simple than that, even. It's the antithesis of the old saw, "Do as I say, not as I do." That one's a particular trap for parents, I've found; one I'm trying not to fall into. There's a part of me that wants to avoid chores on weekends, while telling the kids to do theirs, and I recognize that that's a form of hypocrisy. Of course, at the same time, if I'm doing my chores, I can't make sure they do theirs. And goodness knows when they're at school I have a hard time following my stated household rule of "Do the things that NEED to be done before doing the things we WANT to do." Especially when there are new books to read.
And on that note...I have books to read! Catch you later!
Saturday, September 1, 2012
The Thing About Gun Control...
...at least in regards to it being a political "issue," is that it's, ultimately, ridiculous. I mean, you can make arguments about how guns are designed to kill people, or about how having them is a part of your Constitutionally Protected Rights and Freedoms, or whatever, but really, what it comes down to is this: Some people are not mentally or emotionally equipped to have access to explosives. And, no, those people shouldn't be ABLE to get them.
The thing is, there are two types of gun deaths -- accidents and not accidents. Accidents are horrible and tragic, yes, but in many cases tighter gun control would not necessarily have prevented them. I am most affected by the story I read many years ago in a now-defunct women's magazine about a woman who, along with her husband, bought a handgun after a rash of home break-ins in their neighborhood. They left it, loaded, on an accessible shelf in their closet, and completely forgot its existence until, one day, their two year old daughter found it and accidentally killed herself. This was the reason this woman was shilling for tighter gun control laws -- she was stupid and irresponsible, and someone died who shouldn't have. Stupidity is NOT the government's fault, people! (Ok, well, some of it is. But not that. If you're not smart enough to figure out how to safely handle and store a handgun, you're right, you don't deserve to have one. But how is anyone supposed to test your ability to follow basic common-sense measures, or, indeed, any sort of gun/hunter's safety?)
In the non-accident category, you have your basic "Dude who has completely flipped and lost his shit" shooting sprees and you have "Dude who has no moral compass and doesn't care who he hurts" killing sprees. Some of the weapons used in these were obtained legally. Some were not. The only way to tell if someone's going to snap and turn into a killing ball of rage is MAYBE a psychological examination. But maybe not. And truthfully, anyone who's THAT determined to hurt people? Well, making it harder for him (or her) to legally purchase guns may help a little. But truthfully? Probably not much. He can go for illegal weapons. Or use non-regulated stuff like knives. Or get online and learn how to make a bomb using common household ingredients. Or, y'know. SOMEthing. Tighter regulations might delay him a bit, but they won't stop him, whatever his motivation.
So, yeah, tighten things up. People with nothing to hide won't be deterred. Some might even welcome more common-sense regulations, like the hunter-safety courses that are required to get hunting licenses, or the periodically required driving tests we have to undergo in order to renew our driver's licenses.
But really? Don't use it as the entire basis of your decision on how to vote. Because that's just as ridiculously mindless a reason to affiliate yourself politically as is the assertion (Yes, I'm sad to admit to knowing someone who thinks this) that women shouldn't vote because they only vote for the most attractive candidate, rather than the one who's "right" on the issues (and how subjective is THAT, by the way?!).
'Cause the truth is, if I voted via wet-panties, I'd have to go Republican -- some of those guys are frigging HOT. However, their ridiculous assertions and obvious backtracking, not to mention their complete disregard for such issues as "Separation of Church and State," "Women's Health and Self-Determination," and "Human Rights" make them deplorable excuses for human beings, and the only way they'd get my vote is if the Democratic side of things started suddenly spouting the same nonsense syllables my seven-year-old claims as his "made-up language" in every appearance/interview/what have you.
Not that I don't believe that most politicians would benefit from the same discipline my kids are subject to from time to time, but that kind of backsliding can really scare a girl!
The thing is, there are two types of gun deaths -- accidents and not accidents. Accidents are horrible and tragic, yes, but in many cases tighter gun control would not necessarily have prevented them. I am most affected by the story I read many years ago in a now-defunct women's magazine about a woman who, along with her husband, bought a handgun after a rash of home break-ins in their neighborhood. They left it, loaded, on an accessible shelf in their closet, and completely forgot its existence until, one day, their two year old daughter found it and accidentally killed herself. This was the reason this woman was shilling for tighter gun control laws -- she was stupid and irresponsible, and someone died who shouldn't have. Stupidity is NOT the government's fault, people! (Ok, well, some of it is. But not that. If you're not smart enough to figure out how to safely handle and store a handgun, you're right, you don't deserve to have one. But how is anyone supposed to test your ability to follow basic common-sense measures, or, indeed, any sort of gun/hunter's safety?)
In the non-accident category, you have your basic "Dude who has completely flipped and lost his shit" shooting sprees and you have "Dude who has no moral compass and doesn't care who he hurts" killing sprees. Some of the weapons used in these were obtained legally. Some were not. The only way to tell if someone's going to snap and turn into a killing ball of rage is MAYBE a psychological examination. But maybe not. And truthfully, anyone who's THAT determined to hurt people? Well, making it harder for him (or her) to legally purchase guns may help a little. But truthfully? Probably not much. He can go for illegal weapons. Or use non-regulated stuff like knives. Or get online and learn how to make a bomb using common household ingredients. Or, y'know. SOMEthing. Tighter regulations might delay him a bit, but they won't stop him, whatever his motivation.
So, yeah, tighten things up. People with nothing to hide won't be deterred. Some might even welcome more common-sense regulations, like the hunter-safety courses that are required to get hunting licenses, or the periodically required driving tests we have to undergo in order to renew our driver's licenses.
But really? Don't use it as the entire basis of your decision on how to vote. Because that's just as ridiculously mindless a reason to affiliate yourself politically as is the assertion (Yes, I'm sad to admit to knowing someone who thinks this) that women shouldn't vote because they only vote for the most attractive candidate, rather than the one who's "right" on the issues (and how subjective is THAT, by the way?!).
'Cause the truth is, if I voted via wet-panties, I'd have to go Republican -- some of those guys are frigging HOT. However, their ridiculous assertions and obvious backtracking, not to mention their complete disregard for such issues as "Separation of Church and State," "Women's Health and Self-Determination," and "Human Rights" make them deplorable excuses for human beings, and the only way they'd get my vote is if the Democratic side of things started suddenly spouting the same nonsense syllables my seven-year-old claims as his "made-up language" in every appearance/interview/what have you.
Not that I don't believe that most politicians would benefit from the same discipline my kids are subject to from time to time, but that kind of backsliding can really scare a girl!
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Random Sadness and Stress.
OK, so, this has been a really stressful month for me. There's been a lot of stuff going on on a personal front, which I won't get into here because the part that's mine to work through I'm not willing to share with anybody besides the few who already heard it all (and I'm probably going to be working through it for a LONG time; there is a lot of anger and sadness and all kinds of other negative emotions happening in my body right now). And the parts that aren't mine? Well, it's not really my place to share them; and anyway sharing wouldn't HELP the situation, and might, in fact, end up making things worse, sooo... radio silence it is.
In the let's see how much we can pile on to make life otherwise difficult category... well, let's see. Both vehicles have been needing work. The Jeep has, well, mushy brakes, but DH said they just need to be bled a little and they'll be fine. Well, OK, but that's not really something I can do for myself, so I'm gonna have to take it in somewhere. & since the brakes make me uncomfortable I won't drive the kids, so I haven't even so much as STARTED the Jeep in a couple of months, sooo...the battery's dead. & when I tried to jump it...well, let's just say it was a massive, monumental failure. Theoretically we have a charger somewhere; I may try that later, but if it doesn't work...well, I've never actually had to remove/replace a car battery before. So that will be interesting.
Since it's a (theoretically) quick & easy fix -- the brakes, anyway -- I want to get that done before I take the minivan in, because I have a feeling (a sinking feeling deep in my gut) that it's not going to be as easy a fix. It has been making this weird clunking, almost grinding noise. Not all the time, just on left turns. And not ALL left turns, just those where I his the gas pedal partway through the turns. So. In case it turns out to be long & involved, I want the Jeep working so I can still do grocery shopping & run errands & pick up kids & all that fun stuff.
Speaking of errands...
One errand I think I'm going to have to run is to take my cat to the vet. He's about 15 years old, and he's been kind of showing his age lately, getting slower and skinnier. But over the last couple of days he has gone seriously downhill. He's gaunt, he doesn't seem to eat or drink, he has bladder control issues, and he can't quite seem to make it if he tries to jump up on anything higher than my knee. His coat looks ungroomed, and he's...It looks like he's bleeding from random places. Like his gums; and his sleep-gunk is all bloody-looking...I think my poor old man is going into renal failure. And I cannot get him a vet appointment, and even if I can, if I'm right, there's nothing that can really be done, so I'm going to be losing my very dearly beloved friend. And it's killing me, because I have no one to hold me and hug me, except the kids. And when I talked to them about it, they just wanted to know how soon we can get a new kitten because "We should have an even number of pets, Mom. I prefer it that way."
So. Yeah. I'm here. I'm coping, barely.
I will admit to wanting to drop the kids on my mom and run away. If she didn't live so far away, I probably would.
In the let's see how much we can pile on to make life otherwise difficult category... well, let's see. Both vehicles have been needing work. The Jeep has, well, mushy brakes, but DH said they just need to be bled a little and they'll be fine. Well, OK, but that's not really something I can do for myself, so I'm gonna have to take it in somewhere. & since the brakes make me uncomfortable I won't drive the kids, so I haven't even so much as STARTED the Jeep in a couple of months, sooo...the battery's dead. & when I tried to jump it...well, let's just say it was a massive, monumental failure. Theoretically we have a charger somewhere; I may try that later, but if it doesn't work...well, I've never actually had to remove/replace a car battery before. So that will be interesting.
Since it's a (theoretically) quick & easy fix -- the brakes, anyway -- I want to get that done before I take the minivan in, because I have a feeling (a sinking feeling deep in my gut) that it's not going to be as easy a fix. It has been making this weird clunking, almost grinding noise. Not all the time, just on left turns. And not ALL left turns, just those where I his the gas pedal partway through the turns. So. In case it turns out to be long & involved, I want the Jeep working so I can still do grocery shopping & run errands & pick up kids & all that fun stuff.
Speaking of errands...
One errand I think I'm going to have to run is to take my cat to the vet. He's about 15 years old, and he's been kind of showing his age lately, getting slower and skinnier. But over the last couple of days he has gone seriously downhill. He's gaunt, he doesn't seem to eat or drink, he has bladder control issues, and he can't quite seem to make it if he tries to jump up on anything higher than my knee. His coat looks ungroomed, and he's...It looks like he's bleeding from random places. Like his gums; and his sleep-gunk is all bloody-looking...I think my poor old man is going into renal failure. And I cannot get him a vet appointment, and even if I can, if I'm right, there's nothing that can really be done, so I'm going to be losing my very dearly beloved friend. And it's killing me, because I have no one to hold me and hug me, except the kids. And when I talked to them about it, they just wanted to know how soon we can get a new kitten because "We should have an even number of pets, Mom. I prefer it that way."
So. Yeah. I'm here. I'm coping, barely.
I will admit to wanting to drop the kids on my mom and run away. If she didn't live so far away, I probably would.
Friday, August 3, 2012
See what happens when I blog tired?
I think one of the things that bothers me most about the whole Gay Marriage/Gay Hate Group thing is that the side against, and all the haters (No, really, ALL the haters...do you know any anti-gay groups that are not?) are "religious" groups. And insist on using the Bible in an attempt to justify and support their views.
I have a long-standing love-hate relationship with religion. The love part is because I was raised with it, in a church that was all about loving and uplifting. The hate part is due to churches that ended up being a lot like the ones that are all about anti-gay, "It's not bullying if it's in The Bible" groups that kind of turned my whole family off church period and forever, each for different things: for my mom, it was the oft-repeated-in-a-wealthy-church-community that women should be showpieces for their husband's money & sit at home all day taking care of kids and house at a time when my dad was out of work and Mom was the sole bread-winner. For my dad, it was an attitude that only white, white-collar men were "worthy" of positions in the church -- deacons, whatever -- when he, a white-collar worker, was incredibly proud of the blue-collar background of his parents and grandparents because their work-ethic made it possible for him to go to college and maybe find a less back-breaking way of life for himself and his family. For us kids, it was...well, when a kid has been taught to think independently and question EVERYTHING, and is then smacked down into a youth group that is told to question NOTHING, the end result is NOT gonna be pretty. Just sayin'.
I really really hate this because one of the parts of history that I loved the most was the study of the western religious movement -- Greek/Roman mythology on up through the breaking up of the church. Pretty much every moment of it has been interesting and thought-provoking for me. It has always seemed to me that, with the exception of some of the darker parts of the earliest mythologies, religion has always been about love and glory and beauty and hope and uplifting ourselves out of the physical everyday and into a mental and emotional place of amazement and joy. And many of the earliest splinters from the Catholic Church were about that -- Martin Luther's need to move away from the greed and lust for Earthly power, the Quakers' need to find a place where they could be peaceful without persecution...
The Founding Fathers of the United States specifically made it a part of the ideal of the nation -- Separation of Church and State; the idea that religion has no place in government, especially in the government of a nation founded on the idea that there is room for all (well, almost all) religious practices in this new nation of ours. (I'm sure there are a few religions out there with some practices that are...unsavory...to our first world sensibilities, and that many of us object to as being inhumane.)
And when you start quoting your Bible as a legitimate (in your view) reason to make something illegal, or start calling for voters to "put the church BACK in the government," well, I have to question whether you ever took a US History class. Or, y'know, passed one. Because if you had, you'd know that there was never any intention in the heads of those (yes, mostly Christian) leaders of ever having religion be a prominent force in law-making in this country. Because, and I cannot stress this enough:
One of our biggest, most important freedoms is the freedom of religion; that is, the freedom to practice whichever religion we wish -- or, to practice NO religion -- without the government being able to tell us, "NO, you're wrong, you MUST BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY is the only correct and right way to fulfill your spiritual needs."
In your quest to "Bring Christ back to the government," whose Christ are you going to use? I don't want YOUR Christ. He is bigoted, probably racist, anti-feminist and thoroughly unpleasant. I have some friends who go to some apparently very pleasant, inclusive, wonderful, loving, uplifting churches; I might like their Christ, given the opportunity, but I don't think their Christ is the same as yours, though. And I think you would fight him as much as you do the current state of affairs. Or what of my Jewish and Muslim friends? Even IF their particular sects of their greater religious affiliations agreed with you on issues like gay marriage, which you're outspokenly against, I don't think, somehow, you'd agree to having their Holiest of Books as the one in charge, despite the fact that the Old Testament of the Christians is the same as the Jewish Torah.
It is hard to continue in the childish belief that "God is Good" in the face of so much mean-spirited hatefulness flowing from the mouths and fingers of those who are supposed, theoretically, to be uplifting a "Gospel of Love and Truth" to the masses.
I believe that, had they the power to see into the future, to see and understand the way events have, to date, unfolded, our first great leaders might have said, not "all MEN are created equal," but "all MANKIND is created equal." We are all mankind -- male, female, trans*, straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, Jew, white, black, brown -- however you classify yourself.
And, frankly, if you want to live in a Church-governed country, well, I'm sure there are still a few around. Go find one of them. (Wikipedia suggest the only two current theocracies are Iran and Vatican City. Take your pick.)
I have a long-standing love-hate relationship with religion. The love part is because I was raised with it, in a church that was all about loving and uplifting. The hate part is due to churches that ended up being a lot like the ones that are all about anti-gay, "It's not bullying if it's in The Bible" groups that kind of turned my whole family off church period and forever, each for different things: for my mom, it was the oft-repeated-in-a-wealthy-church-community that women should be showpieces for their husband's money & sit at home all day taking care of kids and house at a time when my dad was out of work and Mom was the sole bread-winner. For my dad, it was an attitude that only white, white-collar men were "worthy" of positions in the church -- deacons, whatever -- when he, a white-collar worker, was incredibly proud of the blue-collar background of his parents and grandparents because their work-ethic made it possible for him to go to college and maybe find a less back-breaking way of life for himself and his family. For us kids, it was...well, when a kid has been taught to think independently and question EVERYTHING, and is then smacked down into a youth group that is told to question NOTHING, the end result is NOT gonna be pretty. Just sayin'.
I really really hate this because one of the parts of history that I loved the most was the study of the western religious movement -- Greek/Roman mythology on up through the breaking up of the church. Pretty much every moment of it has been interesting and thought-provoking for me. It has always seemed to me that, with the exception of some of the darker parts of the earliest mythologies, religion has always been about love and glory and beauty and hope and uplifting ourselves out of the physical everyday and into a mental and emotional place of amazement and joy. And many of the earliest splinters from the Catholic Church were about that -- Martin Luther's need to move away from the greed and lust for Earthly power, the Quakers' need to find a place where they could be peaceful without persecution...
The Founding Fathers of the United States specifically made it a part of the ideal of the nation -- Separation of Church and State; the idea that religion has no place in government, especially in the government of a nation founded on the idea that there is room for all (well, almost all) religious practices in this new nation of ours. (I'm sure there are a few religions out there with some practices that are...unsavory...to our first world sensibilities, and that many of us object to as being inhumane.)
And when you start quoting your Bible as a legitimate (in your view) reason to make something illegal, or start calling for voters to "put the church BACK in the government," well, I have to question whether you ever took a US History class. Or, y'know, passed one. Because if you had, you'd know that there was never any intention in the heads of those (yes, mostly Christian) leaders of ever having religion be a prominent force in law-making in this country. Because, and I cannot stress this enough:
One of our biggest, most important freedoms is the freedom of religion; that is, the freedom to practice whichever religion we wish -- or, to practice NO religion -- without the government being able to tell us, "NO, you're wrong, you MUST BELIEVE WHAT WE SAY is the only correct and right way to fulfill your spiritual needs."
In your quest to "Bring Christ back to the government," whose Christ are you going to use? I don't want YOUR Christ. He is bigoted, probably racist, anti-feminist and thoroughly unpleasant. I have some friends who go to some apparently very pleasant, inclusive, wonderful, loving, uplifting churches; I might like their Christ, given the opportunity, but I don't think their Christ is the same as yours, though. And I think you would fight him as much as you do the current state of affairs. Or what of my Jewish and Muslim friends? Even IF their particular sects of their greater religious affiliations agreed with you on issues like gay marriage, which you're outspokenly against, I don't think, somehow, you'd agree to having their Holiest of Books as the one in charge, despite the fact that the Old Testament of the Christians is the same as the Jewish Torah.
It is hard to continue in the childish belief that "God is Good" in the face of so much mean-spirited hatefulness flowing from the mouths and fingers of those who are supposed, theoretically, to be uplifting a "Gospel of Love and Truth" to the masses.
I believe that, had they the power to see into the future, to see and understand the way events have, to date, unfolded, our first great leaders might have said, not "all MEN are created equal," but "all MANKIND is created equal." We are all mankind -- male, female, trans*, straight, gay, Christian, Muslim, Jew, white, black, brown -- however you classify yourself.
And, frankly, if you want to live in a Church-governed country, well, I'm sure there are still a few around. Go find one of them. (Wikipedia suggest the only two current theocracies are Iran and Vatican City. Take your pick.)
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Parental Failure/disowning your child
OK, so I guess this is technically kindasorta part 2 of "Why I Booted My SIL Off My Facebook." Last one was the healthcare, this is about parenting. The picture I shared on my FB was a rainbow background with the words "I don't understand why people think that having a gay child means they failed as a parent. Disowning your child means you failed as a parent." My SIL had this to say (paraphrased, as I deleted her comment and didn't exactly memorize it) "1. Feeling like a failure is not the same as disowning a child. 2. If a parent invests a lot of time and effort in raising their kids to be Christians, and those kids grow up and convert to Islam, don't you think they would feel justified in feeling like they failed as parents?"
So...
1. Nobody said that feeling like a failure as a parent is the same thing as disowning a child. The statement is that choosing to disown your child is a failure. Let's start with a very basic premise here: as a parent, I believe my children deserve my unconditional love. I don't have to like them a whole lot, or even be happy with them all the time, but I always, always, no matter what LOVE them. I do not put conditions on that love. I don't say, "I'll always love you, but only as long as you're straight." or "I'll always love you as long as you only fall in love with someone of a similar ethnicity." When you disown your child, you are saying, in effect, "You no longer deserve my love, because you did something I don't agree with." You don't have to agree with your child's choices. You do have to love them, even when you disagree with them.
2. This one is WAY more difficult for me. In the first place, I believe you CANNOT compare religion and sexual orientation. One is born into you, the other you are born into. I do not choose to be attracted only to men. In fact, I have been emotionally involved with women before -- and, to an extent, physically. I did not deliberately set out thinking, "Hey, wouldn't it be cool to experiment with chicks AND dudes? How many people do you think I shock like that?" I had reactions -- physical and emotional -- to women and I tried to see if there was something long-term there. Just like I had similar reactions to guys and tried to see if there was potential there. Ultimately, I ended up with a guy, and part of that is that we were both stupid and I ended up pregnant, but as it turns out, we're, generally speaking, pretty damn good together. Or at least as good together as one could reasonably hope to be with another person.
Religion...well, religion -- and specifically Christianity -- has failed significantly to meet my emotional, spiritual needs on several occasions. I no longer believe in the institution, although I have many wonderful friends who have found apparently equally wonderful churches that are woman-inclusive, LGBT-inclusive...people-inclusive. That's wonderful for them. I have a hard time believing I'm going to find the same openness here where I live, and frankly, my heart and soul are too tired and bruised to try to find out. So I'm opting out of organized religion. That doesn't mean I'm not still trying to bring my children up with those "Christian" values -- love, generosity, forgiveness, honesty. You know, the same basic human decencies that ALL religions, at their most basic levels, espouse.
So, honestly? Once my kids are a bit older, we'll start discussing things like belief, and the structures and systems of various religions. I'll encourage them to read, and think, and explore. And if, in the end, they find that there is a religion or even just a specific church that resonates with them, that makes them feel secure and transcendant, and like they've finally come home, then I will simply be happy for them. I will not judge them. I will not caution them, unless it seems cult-like, or fanatical. In that case, I will remind them that, if they lose their good feeling, I will always be here and loving them and ready to scale mountains and slay dragons on their behalf, like the unconditionally loving mother I am. Yep, even if it's Islam. I know some truly lovely, gentle, wonderful people who just happen to have been raised Muslim.
And if my girl brings home another woman, or one (or both) of my boys another man?
I shall hope it's someone wonderful, someone deserving of one of my amazing children.
And I will love.
Fiercely.
And unconditionally.
And if that person my child brings home has been disowned by their parents for being gay, well...welcome to the family, dear one. We are so very glad to have you here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)