Sorry, heavy topic alert.
I've been thinking about the Holocaust a bit lately because I recently listened to the audio version of Anne Frank's Diary, and also because I recently did some reading about Kristallnacht in memory of its eightieth anniversary. I used to be confused about how Nazism took hold, how Hitler was able to come into power, and how people could rationalize supporting a government that sent people to concentration camps. I've thought many times that it couldn't happen here. While it would be much harder for something like that to happen in the United States with the separated powers we enjoy in this country, in the last few years I've come to the conclusion that it can happen here. People are people, and they're prone to demonizing others if doing so supports their preconceived worldview.
That Internet conversations and debates frequently devolve into one side comparing the other to Hitler or the Nazis is so well established that it has its own informal law. The real shame of this tendency is that comparing everyone to Hitler and the Nazis makes it so that few really take it seriously when someone actually does things like Hitler would. If a real Hitler appears, anyone pointing it out would be seen as a crazy person triggering Godwin's Law.
My views on identifying nascent Nazism have changed some over the years. I used to think of it as a workers movement because this is the vibe that the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will gives, and I in turn thought that was what I needed to be wary of. However, workers movements elsewhere haven't had that same destructive tinge. Certainly, some have. The destructive ones are noteworthy because they're the exceptions, though. Most have not. Therefore, it has to be something deeper.
It could be that the key is that Nazism, like Fascism, was Nationalist. I know that belief is getting airtime nowadays more than in the past. It could also be that a deeper dig could reveal that this is unfair to some Nationalist movements which are not so destructive, if such movements exist. I simply don't know at this time.
I'm not calling anyone on the world stage a Hitler today. Even if I did, who would take it seriously? These are now the sort of accusations crazy people make, and so they are a red flag to most that the speaker wants to decry everyone who disagrees with his as a Nazi. I do see tendencies of what I do know about Hitler and Nazism in general in some modern political figures and movements that give me pause, though. Some of those figures are in other countries and some are in the United States. Since I'm no true expert, it would be unfair for me to call out someone as a Hitler based on a partial observation. I have to believe though, that it would also be right for me to be cautious about their statements and actions, and refuse to support or endorse those individuals and movements, wittingly or otherwise.
It is easy to see how an individual with similarities to Hitler could take power, and how horrible things could be justified in the name of whatever that man portrayed as the ideal. In 1930s Germany the ideal was a form of Eugenics supported by a host of conspiracy theories about Zionists. I'm certain that a lot of Germans figured the Jews were simply being sent to a camp where they couldn't harm anyone else, and whatever happened to them they had coming. Modern societies aren't immune to that sort of thinking. Someone today can mix a weird political philosophy with conspiracy theories about some other group of people and do the same thing. As long as a vocal minority (or even majority) believes the conspiracy theory, what's to stop them from doing horrible things? Those people probably won't even ever realize the negative things they enabled.
History can be scary when you stop thinking that it can't happen here.
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label books. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Friday, November 02, 2018
our worst selves
I just finished listening to the audio version of The Diary of Anne Frank. I have a few thoughts on this, but I'll address the one that strikes me the most in this post. That is that our perceptions of others is almost always inaccurate. I'm not even taking this from the obvious direction of the fact that people thought wrongly of the Jews. I was affected by a completely different manifestation of this in the book.
Ms. Frank apparently wrote her diary with the idea that it would one day be used as documentation of the life she and others lived during the German occupation. This was brilliant of her, but it also establishes that this is not just any teen-aged girl's diary. This is the diary of someone who is writing thoughts that she on some level expects to be broadcast to others. Given this, her clashes with others in the annex where she hid are fascinating. She probably expected those she wrote about to eventually discover what she was writing. What she thought the end result of that discovery would be is beyond me, but that reality had to be known to her.
Once or twice she has a deep conflict with her mother, but the person she seemed to constantly be irritated with was the matriarch of another family in the annex. In the book, this woman is named Mrs. van Daan, but her real name was apparently Auguste van Pels. To me, the clashes sounded driven by personality and generational differences between Ms. Frank and Mrs. van Daan.
It's easy to take Anne's side when she complains about how intolerable Mrs. Van Daan is. She is the one who gets to tell her side of the story, after all. Having concluded the book and learned that only one person who hid in the annex survived Nazi captivity, though, has given me pause and empathy for all of its inhabitants, including Mrs. van Daan. It has also caused me to wonder how I would be portrayed in such a work.
Can I imagine being trapped in a poorly ventilated annex with seven other people and minimal privacy for two years without coming a bit unhinged? Can I imagine the constant stress of potentially being captured, and slowly going further and further into poverty (There is a poignant situation recorded in the diary where Mrs. van Daan has to sell her prized fur coat so that they can continue to make ends meet.)? I am sure that there would be multiple instances of my having said or done things that would appear indefensible. Then, to have those recorded for posterity as the most noteworthy description of my life and character would be difficult to bear. I don't want to pretend that dying at the hands of the Nazis was in any way a good thing, but it is a minor mercy that Mrs. van Pels never learned of her future notoriety.
This sort of thing actually comes up a lot today. Someone will be filmed saying or doing something that is objectively wrong, then they are punished in an out-of-proportion fashion through a viral video or social media post. Sometimes it's even for things that aren't objectively wrong, but are just violations of social norms. An example of this showed up in a news story a few weeks back about someone who was caught shaving on a train (below).
Objective wrongs should be corrected, but people's lives shouldn't be destroyed in the process; and they should certainly not be destroyed over minor social rule violations.
That I am saying this isn't to imply that I'm better than those who share such viral things. I'm as likely to laugh and click share. I'm as prone as anyone to seek righteous comeuppance through online mob justice. My primary point is that I'm trying to do my best not to be part of the problem when I'm online, and I'd encourage anyone reading this to take conscious steps to do the same.
Ms. Frank apparently wrote her diary with the idea that it would one day be used as documentation of the life she and others lived during the German occupation. This was brilliant of her, but it also establishes that this is not just any teen-aged girl's diary. This is the diary of someone who is writing thoughts that she on some level expects to be broadcast to others. Given this, her clashes with others in the annex where she hid are fascinating. She probably expected those she wrote about to eventually discover what she was writing. What she thought the end result of that discovery would be is beyond me, but that reality had to be known to her.
Once or twice she has a deep conflict with her mother, but the person she seemed to constantly be irritated with was the matriarch of another family in the annex. In the book, this woman is named Mrs. van Daan, but her real name was apparently Auguste van Pels. To me, the clashes sounded driven by personality and generational differences between Ms. Frank and Mrs. van Daan.
It's easy to take Anne's side when she complains about how intolerable Mrs. Van Daan is. She is the one who gets to tell her side of the story, after all. Having concluded the book and learned that only one person who hid in the annex survived Nazi captivity, though, has given me pause and empathy for all of its inhabitants, including Mrs. van Daan. It has also caused me to wonder how I would be portrayed in such a work.
Can I imagine being trapped in a poorly ventilated annex with seven other people and minimal privacy for two years without coming a bit unhinged? Can I imagine the constant stress of potentially being captured, and slowly going further and further into poverty (There is a poignant situation recorded in the diary where Mrs. van Daan has to sell her prized fur coat so that they can continue to make ends meet.)? I am sure that there would be multiple instances of my having said or done things that would appear indefensible. Then, to have those recorded for posterity as the most noteworthy description of my life and character would be difficult to bear. I don't want to pretend that dying at the hands of the Nazis was in any way a good thing, but it is a minor mercy that Mrs. van Pels never learned of her future notoriety.
This sort of thing actually comes up a lot today. Someone will be filmed saying or doing something that is objectively wrong, then they are punished in an out-of-proportion fashion through a viral video or social media post. Sometimes it's even for things that aren't objectively wrong, but are just violations of social norms. An example of this showed up in a news story a few weeks back about someone who was caught shaving on a train (below).
Objective wrongs should be corrected, but people's lives shouldn't be destroyed in the process; and they should certainly not be destroyed over minor social rule violations.
That I am saying this isn't to imply that I'm better than those who share such viral things. I'm as likely to laugh and click share. I'm as prone as anyone to seek righteous comeuppance through online mob justice. My primary point is that I'm trying to do my best not to be part of the problem when I'm online, and I'd encourage anyone reading this to take conscious steps to do the same.
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
the same old
The last couple of years have felt rather different from any I've experienced in my short adulthood, at least politically. This is partially because we do live in odd political times where standards that applied before no longer do. However, that being acknowledged, many of the issues being argued in politics and the problems with the political system are as old as the country is.
I am just now wrapping up listening to the audio book version of David McCullough's biography of John Adams. In this, I have been struck by the number of issues that are still resonant today.
Foremost among the problems in the political system are people's loyalty to party over country. Adams himself is presented in the book being aghast at the party-ism he saw, though he did represent a party when in office. The book goes to great lengths to illustrate that his fellow Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, caused him as much trouble as the Republican-Democrats did. Hamilton was to Adams like the modern-day tea partiers to establishment Republicans or Bernie supporters to establishment Democrats. The sense is presented that many Federalists didn't believe that Adams was enough on their side on some matters.
Another issue McCullough presents is how many people picked and chose their media coverage based on whether they presented the political slant that they agreed with. Furthermore, the papers that sided with one party over the other were ruthlessly savage to the opposition, and one gets the sense that they weren't overly concerned with accuracy.
It is partially because of the savage press that Adams committed what many consider to be his most shameful act in signing the Alien and Sedition Act. This was partially anti-immigration legislation, which apparently is not a new thing, and partially legislation to limit what was called seditious speech against the government in power. I personally believe that this act is a black mark on Adams' legacy, but it is interesting that recent immigration actions by the current administration that feel like a new thing are not new at all.
It's almost only mentioned in passing in the book, but one of the early debates in the country was whether having a national bank was reasonable. This sounds very much like the Libertarian and somewhat Trumpian rumblings today of, "Wouldn't it be better if markets ran themselves rather than being managed by the Fed?" That view toward the national bank was more mainstream then than the anti-Fed view is today.
The Federalists were seen as the war-mongering party of their day, as there was a major push by Hamilton to go to war against post-revolution France. Adams was called a monarchist in part because he favored a good trade relationship with Britain that was imbalanced against the Americans, which was the equivalent of decrying someone as unpatriotic today. Likewise Jefferson, the figurehead of the Republican-Democrats, was labeled as an irreligious and immoral person. These are still go-to attacks for some candidates.
The book spends time discussing the work put into establishing trade deals, and at least one ill-conceived embargo that backfired on Adams' son when he voted for it in Congress. Those are both scenarios that are salient today.
One final thing unrelated to politics that has struck me about the book is the different amounts of time that Adams spent with his different children. He spent a lot of time in Europe, and his oldest son--John Q. Adams--was there with him much more than any other member of the family. Later, Adams' two other sons turned out to have very significant issues, with one dying of cirrhosis of the liver, and one wonders if this is partially due to them being left behind when their dad traveled away. This makes me feel fortunate that I have not had to travel away from my family for work as many others have had to.
I am just now wrapping up listening to the audio book version of David McCullough's biography of John Adams. In this, I have been struck by the number of issues that are still resonant today.
Foremost among the problems in the political system are people's loyalty to party over country. Adams himself is presented in the book being aghast at the party-ism he saw, though he did represent a party when in office. The book goes to great lengths to illustrate that his fellow Federalists, such as Alexander Hamilton, caused him as much trouble as the Republican-Democrats did. Hamilton was to Adams like the modern-day tea partiers to establishment Republicans or Bernie supporters to establishment Democrats. The sense is presented that many Federalists didn't believe that Adams was enough on their side on some matters.
Another issue McCullough presents is how many people picked and chose their media coverage based on whether they presented the political slant that they agreed with. Furthermore, the papers that sided with one party over the other were ruthlessly savage to the opposition, and one gets the sense that they weren't overly concerned with accuracy.
It is partially because of the savage press that Adams committed what many consider to be his most shameful act in signing the Alien and Sedition Act. This was partially anti-immigration legislation, which apparently is not a new thing, and partially legislation to limit what was called seditious speech against the government in power. I personally believe that this act is a black mark on Adams' legacy, but it is interesting that recent immigration actions by the current administration that feel like a new thing are not new at all.
It's almost only mentioned in passing in the book, but one of the early debates in the country was whether having a national bank was reasonable. This sounds very much like the Libertarian and somewhat Trumpian rumblings today of, "Wouldn't it be better if markets ran themselves rather than being managed by the Fed?" That view toward the national bank was more mainstream then than the anti-Fed view is today.
The Federalists were seen as the war-mongering party of their day, as there was a major push by Hamilton to go to war against post-revolution France. Adams was called a monarchist in part because he favored a good trade relationship with Britain that was imbalanced against the Americans, which was the equivalent of decrying someone as unpatriotic today. Likewise Jefferson, the figurehead of the Republican-Democrats, was labeled as an irreligious and immoral person. These are still go-to attacks for some candidates.
The book spends time discussing the work put into establishing trade deals, and at least one ill-conceived embargo that backfired on Adams' son when he voted for it in Congress. Those are both scenarios that are salient today.
One final thing unrelated to politics that has struck me about the book is the different amounts of time that Adams spent with his different children. He spent a lot of time in Europe, and his oldest son--John Q. Adams--was there with him much more than any other member of the family. Later, Adams' two other sons turned out to have very significant issues, with one dying of cirrhosis of the liver, and one wonders if this is partially due to them being left behind when their dad traveled away. This makes me feel fortunate that I have not had to travel away from my family for work as many others have had to.
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
feel loved
When you think of the feeling of love between spouses, boyfriend/girlfriend, or whatever, how do you define it? What does it mean if a person feels loved? I believe that this is the most fundamental difference between men and women, and this discovery is a multi-year process that I am still walking through.
A long while back I wrote something about not needing to feel loved. Ultimately, I've determined that this is not true, but only because of the way the word is defined. Almost every time I have heard the phrase "feel loved" used it has been applied to some need I identified as feminine. I don't generally have the same needs as a woman, so that verbiage feels inaccurate.
I really did not think in terms of actually needing love until Golden and I read The 5 Love Languages together a few years ago, and that only because the author kept speaking in terms of "feeling loved."
However everyone has needs. That's part of the human experience, and I'm certainly no different. If those needs are or are not getting met I have not historically gauged it in terms of whether I, "feel loved," though. I have discovered over the years that the phrase, "feel loved," makes more sense to the women in my life (especially Golden) than other phrases that I might use. While to me the words might be "respected/disrespected" or "important/insignificant," the words "loved/unloved" appear to communicate feelings better.
Now, when I think of whether I or anyone else feels loved I try to reinterpret, "feel loved," with, "feel like my needs are getting met." I know these aren't perfect apples-for-apples phrases, however this makes much more sense to me. While we all have different needs, we are all alike in that we do have needs. So, this is how I am resolving this minefield of a phrase.
A long while back I wrote something about not needing to feel loved. Ultimately, I've determined that this is not true, but only because of the way the word is defined. Almost every time I have heard the phrase "feel loved" used it has been applied to some need I identified as feminine. I don't generally have the same needs as a woman, so that verbiage feels inaccurate.
I really did not think in terms of actually needing love until Golden and I read The 5 Love Languages together a few years ago, and that only because the author kept speaking in terms of "feeling loved."
However everyone has needs. That's part of the human experience, and I'm certainly no different. If those needs are or are not getting met I have not historically gauged it in terms of whether I, "feel loved," though. I have discovered over the years that the phrase, "feel loved," makes more sense to the women in my life (especially Golden) than other phrases that I might use. While to me the words might be "respected/disrespected" or "important/insignificant," the words "loved/unloved" appear to communicate feelings better.
Now, when I think of whether I or anyone else feels loved I try to reinterpret, "feel loved," with, "feel like my needs are getting met." I know these aren't perfect apples-for-apples phrases, however this makes much more sense to me. While we all have different needs, we are all alike in that we do have needs. So, this is how I am resolving this minefield of a phrase.
Friday, July 29, 2016
song of songs
FYI, the topic below is somewhat adult in nature, but it is Biblical.
Along with teaching Sunday School, I also alternate with someone else teaching a men's class at church. I could take the easy way out with video series, and I am leaving myself open to the possibility in the future, but I have been doing expository teaching through different books of the Bible.
What I hate teaching (or sitting through a lesson on) the most is something that everyone in the room already knows. If I know a passage or a topic has been taught repetitively and I don't have something new to bring to the table, I really don't enjoy teaching the lesson. Because of this, I am drawn to teaching things that others have not focused on, for one reason or another.
All of this is to say that I decided a while back to teach the Song of Songs in the men's class. I used two books in planning my lessons (The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy by O'Donnell and Exalting Jesus in the Song of Songs by Akin and Platt). I am going to be wrapping up the series in early August, and so have pretty much gotten through the entire book. I have included some thoughts I have about teaching the book below.
Along with teaching Sunday School, I also alternate with someone else teaching a men's class at church. I could take the easy way out with video series, and I am leaving myself open to the possibility in the future, but I have been doing expository teaching through different books of the Bible.
What I hate teaching (or sitting through a lesson on) the most is something that everyone in the room already knows. If I know a passage or a topic has been taught repetitively and I don't have something new to bring to the table, I really don't enjoy teaching the lesson. Because of this, I am drawn to teaching things that others have not focused on, for one reason or another.
All of this is to say that I decided a while back to teach the Song of Songs in the men's class. I used two books in planning my lessons (The Song of Solomon: An Invitation to Intimacy by O'Donnell and Exalting Jesus in the Song of Songs by Akin and Platt). I am going to be wrapping up the series in early August, and so have pretty much gotten through the entire book. I have included some thoughts I have about teaching the book below.
- I never appreciated the true spiritual value of the Song. Marriage represents the Church and Christ, and so the quality of union we have with our spouse reflects how we value the relationship between Christ and the Church. The purpose of the Song is to celebrate and promote Godly marriage that properly reflects the relationship between God and His people.
- I never appreciated the context and target audience of the Song. This is probably a song (or series of songs) meant to be sung at a wedding celebration, and targeted to unmarried girls. One can imagine singers taking the roles of husband and wife, and a choir of girls singing the "friends" parts. Who the target audience is explains a lot of the content in the book, not the least of which are the three commands in the Song to not forfeit one's virginity too quickly.
- I did not appreciate that reading this song literally is a relatively recent approach. For centuries commentators assumed that the book is a metaphor for God and the Church or God and Israel. The Song couldn't be about intimacy between a married couple because that would degrade the Holy Scripture. This is a perspective that seems laughable today, and it is a ridiculous position, but it was the de facto position of all of Christianity and Judaism for over a millennium.
- Some weeks were flat-out awkward because my sources assumed that if something could be describing a very intimate part of the body or intimate action that was probably the correct interpretation.
- I used to have a real problem with the Song because I believed that the man in the Song was Solomon. One of my sources (Akin/Platt) believes that this is true, but my other source (O'Donnell) believes that Solomon is only introduces for comparison purposes. This is appealing for a few reasons, one of which is that it solves the very difficult challenge with the book that the Song does not describe a polygamist's marriage. This would conflict with the mutual ownership that the woman expresses throughout the Song (Song 2:16; 6:3; 7:10), as well as with the fact that polygamy was not God's perfect ideal for marriage. I agree with O'Donnell that Song of Songs is written by Solomon to describe a different, idealized couple.
- I did not realize that the Song was written very much with the intent of praising the value of virginity. Apart from the commands to wait for love in the Song, there are a couple of clear indications that the woman (This song is targeted to girls) saved herself for marriage. First, in the honeymoon chapter her husband refers to her body as a locked garden and a sealed fountain, indicating that she has closed herself off from men until this time (Song 4:12). Second, in the conclusion the woman describes herself as a wall in comparison to a door, which likely establishes her virginity because a wall is not entered but a door is (Song 8:10).
The most practical lesson I have gotten from teaching Song of Songs is that a husband has a responsibility to praise his wife's beauty to her frequently and in detail, and see her as his standard for beauty, Likewise, a wife has a responsibility to periodically make herself physically available to her husband. Those points sum up about half of the book.
I am looking forward to being done with this series. That is less about the awkwardness of the topic and more about the time I have to spend in preparing these lessons. I'm ready for a less-involved series.
Saturday, December 26, 2015
boredom
When I was seven I remember wondering how I would ever outgrow Sesame Street. I knew it would happen. I could see that my parents, and other adults for that matter, only had a passing interest in it, but for the life of me I could not grasp what would change about me such that the show would no longer hold my interest.
A few years later my parents worked for a school on an Indian reservation (no one--even Native people--ever called it a "Native American reservation" in my recollection) they used to have a week of sermons at the school called spiritual emphasis week. Something that those who have not spent much time on a reservation might not know is that time has a different meaning there. Starting and ending times for a lot of events on the reservation are more generalizations than rules, and so many of the sermons would go hours long. I distinctly remember sitting through a two-hour (or three-hour... they did occasionally go that long) sermon at nine years old wondering what would change about me for me to be as interested as my parents appeared to be in the sermon's contents.
Even today, I am often struck by how some forms of entertainment that others genuinely enjoy are painfully boring to me, and how many things that deeply fascinate me hold no interest in most anyone else. What is it that drives fascination and boredom? That question has been in my mind for at least the last thirty years.
I think there are three things that cause things to be boring.
1. Something is too simple.
Why do I find most kids' entertainment boring? Easy, it's because there's nothing unexpected or engaging in it. Bar none, if a children's show or movie is entertaining to me it is because something has been added to it that goes beyond it's primary audience.
2. Something is too complicated.
Many subjects are boring to me merely because I don't even possess the knowledge necessary knowledge to know how to be engaged. By definition, it is difficult for me to provide good examples because the moment I have enough insight to cite an example I have stepped toward the issue not being so complicated. I do suspect that this is the main reason I am bored by much of what is considered high literature.
3 (or 2b). It doesn't speak to my experiences in life or the needs I have that drive me.
This is sort of like #2, but the reason for lacking understanding is not due to how complicated the issue is, but rather my not being equipped with fundamental background to appreciate the thing.
The best example I have of boredom from a lack of fundamental understanding is Pride and Prejudice. I tried very hard to care about the book and the movie about ten years ago, but I just couldn't. I lost interest in the book about four chapters in, and I could not connect with the characters on the most basic of levels simply because I had no fundamental understanding of what drove the main character. I even got the sense that the things I sort of understood about the main character I understood wrong.
One of my pet peeves is when I am expected to enjoy something when I do not have the underlying drives or experiences that lend value to that thing. I suspect that most other people feel similarly.
So, in order for something not to be boring to a person it has to reside in their window of knowledge where it isn't too dumbed-down to drive engagement or too complicated to make sense. It has to also have some basis in the audience's experience and fundamental needs.
So, what do you think? Are there other things that cause things to be boring? Have you been as fascinated with this as I, or do you find this whole line of thinking boring in and of itself? What is so boring to you it is painful?
A few years later my parents worked for a school on an Indian reservation (no one--even Native people--ever called it a "Native American reservation" in my recollection) they used to have a week of sermons at the school called spiritual emphasis week. Something that those who have not spent much time on a reservation might not know is that time has a different meaning there. Starting and ending times for a lot of events on the reservation are more generalizations than rules, and so many of the sermons would go hours long. I distinctly remember sitting through a two-hour (or three-hour... they did occasionally go that long) sermon at nine years old wondering what would change about me for me to be as interested as my parents appeared to be in the sermon's contents.
Even today, I am often struck by how some forms of entertainment that others genuinely enjoy are painfully boring to me, and how many things that deeply fascinate me hold no interest in most anyone else. What is it that drives fascination and boredom? That question has been in my mind for at least the last thirty years.
I think there are three things that cause things to be boring.
1. Something is too simple.
Why do I find most kids' entertainment boring? Easy, it's because there's nothing unexpected or engaging in it. Bar none, if a children's show or movie is entertaining to me it is because something has been added to it that goes beyond it's primary audience.
2. Something is too complicated.
Many subjects are boring to me merely because I don't even possess the knowledge necessary knowledge to know how to be engaged. By definition, it is difficult for me to provide good examples because the moment I have enough insight to cite an example I have stepped toward the issue not being so complicated. I do suspect that this is the main reason I am bored by much of what is considered high literature.
3 (or 2b). It doesn't speak to my experiences in life or the needs I have that drive me.
This is sort of like #2, but the reason for lacking understanding is not due to how complicated the issue is, but rather my not being equipped with fundamental background to appreciate the thing.
The best example I have of boredom from a lack of fundamental understanding is Pride and Prejudice. I tried very hard to care about the book and the movie about ten years ago, but I just couldn't. I lost interest in the book about four chapters in, and I could not connect with the characters on the most basic of levels simply because I had no fundamental understanding of what drove the main character. I even got the sense that the things I sort of understood about the main character I understood wrong.
One of my pet peeves is when I am expected to enjoy something when I do not have the underlying drives or experiences that lend value to that thing. I suspect that most other people feel similarly.
So, in order for something not to be boring to a person it has to reside in their window of knowledge where it isn't too dumbed-down to drive engagement or too complicated to make sense. It has to also have some basis in the audience's experience and fundamental needs.
So, what do you think? Are there other things that cause things to be boring? Have you been as fascinated with this as I, or do you find this whole line of thinking boring in and of itself? What is so boring to you it is painful?
Sunday, November 03, 2013
900
 |
| Sandro Botticelli's Chart of Hell |
About twelve years ago I read a translation of Dante Alighieri's Inferno, which was his depiction of Hell, as well as his Purgatorio (Purgatory) and Paradiso (Heaven or Paradise). The way this is tenuously related to 900 is that Dante's depiction of Hell was that it was a gigantic hole in the ground, and that there were nine (not nine hundred, but I already said this was tenuous) rings that formed the hole, and the closer to the center rings you got the deeper into the hole you were. Each ring was devoted to specific types of sinners, and so the less bad sinners were tormented on the outer rings while the serious sinners were tormented worse in the inner rings.
I have had a lot of contemplations about Inferno ever since I read it, but I never took the opportunity fully articulate them until now, so this is my chance.
The first thing a person notices when reading Inferno is that Dante had enemies and he enjoyed imagining them suffer. He fills his Hell with people he personally knew, or who were opposed in some way to Dante (or his city-state), and details in what way those people will suffer that is related to the way they sinned. He also fills his Hell with historical figures that most people agreed were deserving of punishment (the worst reserved for Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot). If Dante had a beef with you there was a pretty good chance you were going to end up somewhere in his literary torture fantasy.
The second thing that sticks out to me is how appealing a depiction, woefully inaccurate or not, of Hell is. Put bluntly, Purgatorio and Paradiso were boring. Inferno was interesting if only for the creativity with which Dante imagined people's eternal demise. On further thought, isn't a perfect reflection of human nature? The idea of being perfected and moving toward Paradise makes for a boring read, but detail how sinners are justly tortured and I can't put the book down.
The third thing that sticks out to me is how damaging the book is to a real belief in Hell. I have heard multiple people say the opposite. Interest in Inferno will make people wonder if there really is a Hell, I've heard. To me, the stories are so specific yet so limited within a human mindset that it feels (and is) contrived. Hell is real, but it is not something that we can conceive of more than we can conceive of Heaven. To force a detailed depiction that makes some physical sense to our feeble minds is to make it sound more like a fairy tale than reality. I couldn't believe that Hell was real if I were forced to accept even 10% of the depiction that Dante presents.
Finally, this trilogy of books is absolute proof that people did not believe the earth was flat in the years prior to Columbus' initial voyage to the Americas. Typically, when people correctly note that people in Medieval times did not believe that the earth was flat, they point to the writings of the ancient Greeks which note that a flat earth would not allow for ships to sink into the horizon to disappear, and that they would instead just disappear into a tiny speck at a large distance away. If the 500 B.C. Greeks knew, the 1492 A.D. Portuguese did as well. I look to Dante instead, who lived about two hundred years before Columbus' voyages.
The reason that Dante presented Hell as a hole in the ground was that he imagined that Hell would be a void in the earth left when Satan was cast down from God's presence and struck the earth like a massive high-speed asteroid. Dante further surmised that on the other side of the world would be a huge mountain created by land upended from the creation of the hole that was Hell. This mountain would be Purgatory, and it would rise up into the heavens and be the gateway into Paradise.
So, in summary, Dante's Hell is a hole in the ground caused by Satan striking the earth with incredible force. Also, Purgatory is a mountain on the other side of the earth, which was created by that same force. This is not a story conceived by someone who believes in a flat earth. It is a story conceived by someone without a great deal of knowledge of physics or astronomy, however, so there is that. I just believe that we need to remember that not every belief from an earlier time period is completely ridiculous. I may have brought harm to that point by mentioning Dante's description of Purgatory as a mountain leading to Paradise, though.
Friday, March 01, 2013
pride & prejudice
For Golden's birthday we watched Pride & Prejudice. The version we saw was the two-hour one with Keira Knightley rather than the the five-hour one with Colin Firth. Obviously, the book and the movies were not made with me mind, so my opinions on the story are probably of little consequence. Also, I can only truly comment on the shorter movie because I have never seen the longer one, and I gave up on the book four chapters in the one time I attempted reading it.
Back when I attempted to read the book it was because I had been told it offered insight into a woman's mind, and I am always interested in understanding how others think. It took me little time to realize that I was not capable of discerning what insight was available. There was too much about the story that was supposed to resonate with the audience that failed to resonate with me simply because I am missing the part of the brain that is supposed to resonate. Also, I couldn't keep the sisters' names straight.
One thing about the movie that perplexed me a bit was how much of the story was intended to be social commentary of the society in which Jane Austin lived. Elizabeth, The main character, is largely defined by how much she is not like her off-kilter family members on one side and the members of proper high society on the other. At least in the movie, is Elizabeth supposed to be the character with modern sensibilities surrounded by people who are at least a little bit off-center, or is she simply supposed to be a participant in her environment who actually does fit in just like everyone else?
This idea of social commentary stuck out to me because I think that one of the greatest appeals to the story to modern women is that it hearkens to a time that many find easy to idealize. If the story is actually supposed to negatively reflect certain aspects of that time period that is an interesting contrast the people who on some level wish they lived in that time period.
Like everyone I have my own escapist entertainment as well, so I am not one to judge.
Back when I attempted to read the book it was because I had been told it offered insight into a woman's mind, and I am always interested in understanding how others think. It took me little time to realize that I was not capable of discerning what insight was available. There was too much about the story that was supposed to resonate with the audience that failed to resonate with me simply because I am missing the part of the brain that is supposed to resonate. Also, I couldn't keep the sisters' names straight.
One thing about the movie that perplexed me a bit was how much of the story was intended to be social commentary of the society in which Jane Austin lived. Elizabeth, The main character, is largely defined by how much she is not like her off-kilter family members on one side and the members of proper high society on the other. At least in the movie, is Elizabeth supposed to be the character with modern sensibilities surrounded by people who are at least a little bit off-center, or is she simply supposed to be a participant in her environment who actually does fit in just like everyone else?
This idea of social commentary stuck out to me because I think that one of the greatest appeals to the story to modern women is that it hearkens to a time that many find easy to idealize. If the story is actually supposed to negatively reflect certain aspects of that time period that is an interesting contrast the people who on some level wish they lived in that time period.
Like everyone I have my own escapist entertainment as well, so I am not one to judge.
Saturday, February 09, 2013
six-word stories
Ernest Hemmingway once wrote the following six-word story on a challenge.
A few I thought of, but don't quite provide the back story depth that Hemmingway was able to generate are below. Like Hemmingway's example, they are mostly a bit dark. That's more indicative to what makes an interesting story than how dark my thinking is, though.
"For sale: baby shoes, never used."The six word story sounds like a conquerable challenge to be sure, but this example illustrates what is involved for a good submission. How do you place so much back story into so few words? The sentence has to be structured in a way that pushes the reader to fill in the blanks, and in this case most of the blanks are filled in and they are all sad. In Hemmingway's story, the classified ad device perfectly trims what would otherwise be sentences to six words. Honestly, seven words would be orders of magnitude easier.
A few I thought of, but don't quite provide the back story depth that Hemmingway was able to generate are below. Like Hemmingway's example, they are mostly a bit dark. That's more indicative to what makes an interesting story than how dark my thinking is, though.
"Meet John, my twin half-brother."There are some decent submissions here, and most are far beyond what I have written. Do you have any ideas for a six-word story?
"We danced under mushroom cloud lighting."
"Mute button broke. Now seeking employment."
"Neighbor found dead after eight weeks."
"She got Draco in the divorce."
"Vegetarian salad, please. Also, steak. Rare."
"Eviction: three days. Death in four."
"My love concurred all. Couldn't disagree."
"Not interested in interest. Soon bankrupt."
"She was a rock. He paper."
"Pyrrhic victory. Opponent's suffering exceeds mine."
"He on one knee. She gone."
"Doppelganger not the evil twin. Surprise!"
"One sacrifice required: everything. Now complete."
Saturday, July 09, 2011
holocaust stories
We are going through The Hiding Place in our Sunday morning class at church right now. It is a very powerful and well-thought-out book, and so it is a good choice. I don't think I am the intended audience, though. This got me to thinking about who is the audience for a story about the Holocaust.
Several people close to me have gone through periods where they were strongly interested in the Holocaust. I have no intent of invalidating that interest, but I do not personally understand it. My reaction to these sorts of stories is due to the fact that it is sadness and loss piled onto more sadness and loss. Even when the story has a happy ending I feel exhausted by that point. I do have to admit that there are some sad stories I am drawn to. Holocaust stories are simply not among them.
I don't want to imply that my perspective on this is the one that is the most valid, though. If you have an interest in Holocaust stories or think you may have some insight into their draw leave a comment. I'd love to get a fresh perspective.
Several people close to me have gone through periods where they were strongly interested in the Holocaust. I have no intent of invalidating that interest, but I do not personally understand it. My reaction to these sorts of stories is due to the fact that it is sadness and loss piled onto more sadness and loss. Even when the story has a happy ending I feel exhausted by that point. I do have to admit that there are some sad stories I am drawn to. Holocaust stories are simply not among them.
I don't want to imply that my perspective on this is the one that is the most valid, though. If you have an interest in Holocaust stories or think you may have some insight into their draw leave a comment. I'd love to get a fresh perspective.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
the end of privacy
This is the post where I sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist. I generally deride the claims that the government is watching every move we make; and I am not either pro- or anti-government, but rather believe we are placed under the systems that God has ordained. I am hoping that these facts provide a little validity to some of my anti-government-sounding, paranoid views below.
I read 1984
one time and that time was about fifteen years ago. While a lot of people view the society described in that book as a likely danger I thought the ideas proposed were ridiculously paranoid when I read them, and I largely still do think that way. I do think that there is one thing about that book that is an eventual inevitability in every society because of advances in technology, though. We will be monitored and that monitoring will be functionally similar the thought police described in the book.
One of the main focuses of 1984 is that people are constantly monitored and that potentially subversive elements of society are detected and spied on by thought police. While I do not like the government conspiracy aspect of the idea, the fact is that technology is going to get to the point in the not-too-distant future where every government (and corporation, and many individuals) will be able to almost accidentally monitor almost everyone in the world effortlessly. It will just take a different form than the book described.
One example is through social media. There is a lot you can tell about people from what they write even when they are purposely trying to hide it. The types of reactions that people post to things they read online, what they say about their preferences or who they admire, when they are active online, what aspects of themselves they decide to share or not to share, et al. I know there is already enough information available on this blog to provide a rather comprehensive personality and psychological profile on me if you know what to look for. Some day automated profiles will be created for everyone who has ever done anything public online simply because the software will be available to collect, parse, and categorize the relevant, freely-available data. Eventually, it will be easy to know everyone who is a threat to commit a certain crime in the future, or who poses a likely threat to a government, or who is the most prone to overpay for the things they buy. Not only that, but the profiles will provide information on everyone's weaknesses and drives, and so will detail how to keep them from doing those things the government does not want them to do. There will not be people who are thought police, but the function will exist through the stuff that we willingly share because that will be the price we pay for a convenient life.
Another example is through old-fashioned monitoring, but in a far less centralized way than was foreseen in 1984. In the book the government did all of the monitoring and no one else really got to know anything meaningful about their neighbors, but in reality we will do the monitoring and our connection with those around use will be what also provides information about us to everyone else who wants to know. People already geo-tag images and video that they upload to cheap or free. Eventually, there will be little point to not be recording and uploading your own video constantly, and some service will exist to collect all of that live video to get monitoring of everything happening everywhere where someone happens to have their device-with-a-camera-in-it (cellphones now, but who knows in the future) running. This is only one source of video. A lot of household products will eventually use video as a source of input (sort of like how the XBox 360 Kinect works), so a lot of inadvertent household audio/video will be made more public than people realize. This sounds bad, but it gets even creepier.
While most people will have video on them most of the time they are in public, simple images are not going to be the only thing that will be collected. Again, since it will be so easy to do, most of that video will eventually be hooked up to software that measures microexpressions. These are small and involuntary expressions that exist on people's faces for short enough periods of time that betray how they are feeling, and they are generally too short for most people to notice. A microexpression would not give away what specifically the person was thinking, but rather that he or she was unintentionally expressing boredom, distraction, contempt, physical attraction, stress, or any number of other feelings. With constant video and software to detect our feelings, the necessary facades of civilized society will disappear. To some people this may sound like a positive thing, but it truly will be more a curse than it will be a blessing. There are a lot of things that we really should not know about each other, and much of it has to do with how we feel about each other in specific situations. On top of that, the video that is collected containing peoples' reactions to different situations will be used to build personality and psychological profiles for every person alive who ever ventures into public or interacts with anyone else.
So, my prediction here is simply this. I think the people who are paranoid about online privacy are right that almost no one appreciates what they are giving up by using social media services, such as this blog for example. I also think, however, that resistance is futile simply because it will be impossible to hide from all of the possible ways to collect data, and even if you found a way to successfully do so that would only make you look suspicious to those you are trying to hide from. Frankly, it will say something about you that you are trying to avoid detection in the first place. Our experiences, our emotions, and our very existences will be naked and on display for the world to see. So, rather than being scared about what is going to happen anyway, enjoy your privacy while you still have it. Fear and paranoia won't look good on a personality profile anyway.
I read 1984
one time and that time was about fifteen years ago. While a lot of people view the society described in that book as a likely danger I thought the ideas proposed were ridiculously paranoid when I read them, and I largely still do think that way. I do think that there is one thing about that book that is an eventual inevitability in every society because of advances in technology, though. We will be monitored and that monitoring will be functionally similar the thought police described in the book.One of the main focuses of 1984 is that people are constantly monitored and that potentially subversive elements of society are detected and spied on by thought police. While I do not like the government conspiracy aspect of the idea, the fact is that technology is going to get to the point in the not-too-distant future where every government (and corporation, and many individuals) will be able to almost accidentally monitor almost everyone in the world effortlessly. It will just take a different form than the book described.
One example is through social media. There is a lot you can tell about people from what they write even when they are purposely trying to hide it. The types of reactions that people post to things they read online, what they say about their preferences or who they admire, when they are active online, what aspects of themselves they decide to share or not to share, et al. I know there is already enough information available on this blog to provide a rather comprehensive personality and psychological profile on me if you know what to look for. Some day automated profiles will be created for everyone who has ever done anything public online simply because the software will be available to collect, parse, and categorize the relevant, freely-available data. Eventually, it will be easy to know everyone who is a threat to commit a certain crime in the future, or who poses a likely threat to a government, or who is the most prone to overpay for the things they buy. Not only that, but the profiles will provide information on everyone's weaknesses and drives, and so will detail how to keep them from doing those things the government does not want them to do. There will not be people who are thought police, but the function will exist through the stuff that we willingly share because that will be the price we pay for a convenient life.
Another example is through old-fashioned monitoring, but in a far less centralized way than was foreseen in 1984. In the book the government did all of the monitoring and no one else really got to know anything meaningful about their neighbors, but in reality we will do the monitoring and our connection with those around use will be what also provides information about us to everyone else who wants to know. People already geo-tag images and video that they upload to cheap or free. Eventually, there will be little point to not be recording and uploading your own video constantly, and some service will exist to collect all of that live video to get monitoring of everything happening everywhere where someone happens to have their device-with-a-camera-in-it (cellphones now, but who knows in the future) running. This is only one source of video. A lot of household products will eventually use video as a source of input (sort of like how the XBox 360 Kinect works), so a lot of inadvertent household audio/video will be made more public than people realize. This sounds bad, but it gets even creepier.
While most people will have video on them most of the time they are in public, simple images are not going to be the only thing that will be collected. Again, since it will be so easy to do, most of that video will eventually be hooked up to software that measures microexpressions. These are small and involuntary expressions that exist on people's faces for short enough periods of time that betray how they are feeling, and they are generally too short for most people to notice. A microexpression would not give away what specifically the person was thinking, but rather that he or she was unintentionally expressing boredom, distraction, contempt, physical attraction, stress, or any number of other feelings. With constant video and software to detect our feelings, the necessary facades of civilized society will disappear. To some people this may sound like a positive thing, but it truly will be more a curse than it will be a blessing. There are a lot of things that we really should not know about each other, and much of it has to do with how we feel about each other in specific situations. On top of that, the video that is collected containing peoples' reactions to different situations will be used to build personality and psychological profiles for every person alive who ever ventures into public or interacts with anyone else.
So, my prediction here is simply this. I think the people who are paranoid about online privacy are right that almost no one appreciates what they are giving up by using social media services, such as this blog for example. I also think, however, that resistance is futile simply because it will be impossible to hide from all of the possible ways to collect data, and even if you found a way to successfully do so that would only make you look suspicious to those you are trying to hide from. Frankly, it will say something about you that you are trying to avoid detection in the first place. Our experiences, our emotions, and our very existences will be naked and on display for the world to see. So, rather than being scared about what is going to happen anyway, enjoy your privacy while you still have it. Fear and paranoia won't look good on a personality profile anyway.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
feminism
I have been thinking about a post on a perspective on Feminism for a while but haven't really known which way to take a topic with such a wide scope and that is so potentially explosive. Since my interest in Feminism has to do with the ways that it has impacted my thinking I decided to focus on that. Unfortunately, since I am looking for oddities in my thinking, this may look like an attack on Feminism. This is not intentional, though, as I personally believe Feminism exists out of necessity. If I were a woman having to deal with some of the men that I have met in my life, I would probably see a very strong need for nearly all Feminist ideals as well.
I have especially thought a lot about different approaches to the genders in the past few months as I recently completed the book Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters: 10 Secrets Every Father Should Know
by Meg Meeker. I initially decided this would be a good book for me to read since I do not have experience raising a girl. Many of the book's theses challenged my opinions which I believe originated in Feminist thought. One point in particular was that most girls on some level associate a strong father figure who sets and keeps strict rules as a dad who is "being there" for her. A constant emphasis in the book is that girls are frequently given so much space that they are not entirely convinced that they are worth being protected. Since I grew up in a relatively strict home this does enlighten some things for me, but it also creates a conflict in my brain.
by Meg Meeker. I initially decided this would be a good book for me to read since I do not have experience raising a girl. Many of the book's theses challenged my opinions which I believe originated in Feminist thought. One point in particular was that most girls on some level associate a strong father figure who sets and keeps strict rules as a dad who is "being there" for her. A constant emphasis in the book is that girls are frequently given so much space that they are not entirely convinced that they are worth being protected. Since I grew up in a relatively strict home this does enlighten some things for me, but it also creates a conflict in my brain.
I know from what my own needs were as a kid that boys operate a bit differently from this and that their need for respect often (not always) contradicts the strict approach. Strictness, especially with older boys, needs to be offset with something that they can use to feel respected. What that something is probably varies and is something that I need to investigate further for NJ's sake. The fact remains that what I am reading about what girls need differs from what I know that boys need. The problem I have is that I now almost feel forced into a double standard for how boys and girls ought to be raised. While I am thankful for the new perspective on double standards, I am uncomfortable with the fact that I have now been forced to reconsider whether some are better in place than abolished.
This talk of explicitly supporting some double standards is not meant to sound sexist. I am not only referring to double standards that appear to negatively impact women. Something that I don't think gets acknowledged is that many double standards disproportionately impact men, and that they do not only target women. Reactions to cross-dressing and the expectation on men that they will bring home the bacon are examples of double standards that impact men more than women, but accepting them does not make a person sexist.
Another reason I have been thinking about Feminism a bit is due to a news story that ran a couple of years ago. A study was performed that established that men who believe in traditional gender roles made more money. The headline from multiple news sources read something to the effect of "Sexist Men Earn More Money." The article titles left little doubt that only a sleazeball sexist would believe that it was ideal for his wife to watch the kids during the day.
Aside from the abortion issue (I'm not going into that today), if there is one position that traditional Feminism takes that does really irritate me it is the assumption that traditionalists are sexist toward women but not toward men. I know far more women who are vocal about wanting to be stay-at-home moms than men who are vocal about wanting their wives to stay home, but it seems the only person who can be sexist in this equation is the man. An enlightened opinion is one that either says it is the wife's choice or one that says the wife has to work outside the house. My perspective put bluntly is that if it is sexist for a husband to expect that his wife should stay at home, then it is sexist for a wife to expect that her husband should work so that she can stay home. I don't believe either positions are inherently sexist, but it is hypocritical to hold one view and not the other. The simple reason that men who believe in traditional gender roles make more is that they believe they are fully responsible for their family's income so they take more steps to make more money by working longer hours at the office, taking second jobs, getting more education, etc. If a man is less traditional and believes that he should not be fully responsible for the family's income, then he will be less likely to make serious sacrifices to bring in more money.
In our situation, Golden had to work for a year because our finances necessitated it. Both of us preferred that she be able to take care of NJ and CD (it was only NJ at the time), but she felt more strongly about it than I did. Am I a sexist for preferring that Golden be able to stay home with NJ? Is Golden a sexist for strongly pushing for that option? What about with our decision for Golden to work a year while our finances improved? Would I have been sexist if I insisted on Golden working so that I could stay home with the kids? I probably make more money than I would if I was significantly less traditional because I would not have sought work positions with the sole intent of being able to provide for my family. I would have probably gotten a degree in a less practical field if I had bothered with a degree at all.
While my actual view leans more traditional, it is more that each family has to decide what is the best way for things to be run. There are situations where both parents working outside the home makes the most sense. There are situations where it is ideal if one parent stays home and watches the kids. There are a million other combinations of part time work, or friends and family watching the kids, or baby-sitting co-ops, etc. The point is that believing that one of the options above is ideal for your family or is ideal in a typical situation does not automatically make you a sexist.
There are other points that I could make about feminist thought that are both good and bad, but these are the ones that have been on my mind. As always, I am more than willing to discuss in the comments, but I always prefer that things stay civil and don't get too political.
This talk of explicitly supporting some double standards is not meant to sound sexist. I am not only referring to double standards that appear to negatively impact women. Something that I don't think gets acknowledged is that many double standards disproportionately impact men, and that they do not only target women. Reactions to cross-dressing and the expectation on men that they will bring home the bacon are examples of double standards that impact men more than women, but accepting them does not make a person sexist.
Another reason I have been thinking about Feminism a bit is due to a news story that ran a couple of years ago. A study was performed that established that men who believe in traditional gender roles made more money. The headline from multiple news sources read something to the effect of "Sexist Men Earn More Money." The article titles left little doubt that only a sleazeball sexist would believe that it was ideal for his wife to watch the kids during the day.
Aside from the abortion issue (I'm not going into that today), if there is one position that traditional Feminism takes that does really irritate me it is the assumption that traditionalists are sexist toward women but not toward men. I know far more women who are vocal about wanting to be stay-at-home moms than men who are vocal about wanting their wives to stay home, but it seems the only person who can be sexist in this equation is the man. An enlightened opinion is one that either says it is the wife's choice or one that says the wife has to work outside the house. My perspective put bluntly is that if it is sexist for a husband to expect that his wife should stay at home, then it is sexist for a wife to expect that her husband should work so that she can stay home. I don't believe either positions are inherently sexist, but it is hypocritical to hold one view and not the other. The simple reason that men who believe in traditional gender roles make more is that they believe they are fully responsible for their family's income so they take more steps to make more money by working longer hours at the office, taking second jobs, getting more education, etc. If a man is less traditional and believes that he should not be fully responsible for the family's income, then he will be less likely to make serious sacrifices to bring in more money.
In our situation, Golden had to work for a year because our finances necessitated it. Both of us preferred that she be able to take care of NJ and CD (it was only NJ at the time), but she felt more strongly about it than I did. Am I a sexist for preferring that Golden be able to stay home with NJ? Is Golden a sexist for strongly pushing for that option? What about with our decision for Golden to work a year while our finances improved? Would I have been sexist if I insisted on Golden working so that I could stay home with the kids? I probably make more money than I would if I was significantly less traditional because I would not have sought work positions with the sole intent of being able to provide for my family. I would have probably gotten a degree in a less practical field if I had bothered with a degree at all.
While my actual view leans more traditional, it is more that each family has to decide what is the best way for things to be run. There are situations where both parents working outside the home makes the most sense. There are situations where it is ideal if one parent stays home and watches the kids. There are a million other combinations of part time work, or friends and family watching the kids, or baby-sitting co-ops, etc. The point is that believing that one of the options above is ideal for your family or is ideal in a typical situation does not automatically make you a sexist.
There are other points that I could make about feminist thought that are both good and bad, but these are the ones that have been on my mind. As always, I am more than willing to discuss in the comments, but I always prefer that things stay civil and don't get too political.
Monday, March 29, 2010
stress
A while back I (probably stupidly) posted my "Big Five" scores and I later announced that I had determined to try to reduce my "Neuroticism" or "Need for stability" score on the test. Tonight I had a revelation that my score might not be truly indicative of how I handle stress. While I am certainly highly-strung, I don't think that I go to the extremes that the test implies that I do.
One of the classes that I am taking now is called Managing People and it requires that I, again, take the Big Five assessment. This time, however, I had to take an assessment that is designed to be used in the workplace for assessing employees and potential employees so it has some slightly different measures. As has been typical, I tested extremely high in having a "Need for stability." I am not talking in the top quarter of testers high. I am talking in the top five percent high.
I take two issues with my test score. First, my interpretation of this score is that this should indicate that I should be curled in a ball weeping under my desk or ready to punch someone at the first sign of stress. Second, I do not believe that if I were in a group of twenty randomly selected people that I would be the most easily stressed. I know many people who are more easily stressed than I am. I think that what is happening is that I have been told so frequently and believed so strongly that I am highly strung that I tend to relay that on the personality tests.
This all occurred to me tonight when I was watching The Amazing Race. One team had a setback and got all upset, and one team member threatened to quit the game. That actually happens relatively frequently in the game. While I would be stressed in that situation and I might need to step away from the situation for a moment to de-stress a bit, I cannot fathom being so frustrated by the situation in question that I would just give up. I also cannot fathom it hampering me much in completing the task in question.
My current job involves customer service as have a few previous jobs I have had. This means that there are occasionally stressful situations of varying degrees that pop up, and I can get worked up about them. I have mentioned before that this typically results in better customer service because I am motivated to resolve the issue quickly. I don't think I get to the stress level that I see from the people on TV, though. Maybe that's just because I don't have to witness the results of my stress?
Regardless, I am going to make a concerted effort to calm down going forward. The results from the last test I took recommended the book Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life
, so I might give that a try. Yet another self-improvement book to read.
One of the classes that I am taking now is called Managing People and it requires that I, again, take the Big Five assessment. This time, however, I had to take an assessment that is designed to be used in the workplace for assessing employees and potential employees so it has some slightly different measures. As has been typical, I tested extremely high in having a "Need for stability." I am not talking in the top quarter of testers high. I am talking in the top five percent high.
I take two issues with my test score. First, my interpretation of this score is that this should indicate that I should be curled in a ball weeping under my desk or ready to punch someone at the first sign of stress. Second, I do not believe that if I were in a group of twenty randomly selected people that I would be the most easily stressed. I know many people who are more easily stressed than I am. I think that what is happening is that I have been told so frequently and believed so strongly that I am highly strung that I tend to relay that on the personality tests.
This all occurred to me tonight when I was watching The Amazing Race. One team had a setback and got all upset, and one team member threatened to quit the game. That actually happens relatively frequently in the game. While I would be stressed in that situation and I might need to step away from the situation for a moment to de-stress a bit, I cannot fathom being so frustrated by the situation in question that I would just give up. I also cannot fathom it hampering me much in completing the task in question.
My current job involves customer service as have a few previous jobs I have had. This means that there are occasionally stressful situations of varying degrees that pop up, and I can get worked up about them. I have mentioned before that this typically results in better customer service because I am motivated to resolve the issue quickly. I don't think I get to the stress level that I see from the people on TV, though. Maybe that's just because I don't have to witness the results of my stress?
Regardless, I am going to make a concerted effort to calm down going forward. The results from the last test I took recommended the book Learned Optimism: How to Change Your Mind and Your Life
, so I might give that a try. Yet another self-improvement book to read.
Sunday, March 07, 2010
let's talk about us
There are three parts to this post. They could have been standalone blog posts, but they are somewhat related and posting them separately would make it look like I am in a rut.
First Part:
When Golden and I were first married I used to joke a lot about the cliche couple where she wants to talk about "us" and he wants nothing to do with it. I don't know why I found that specific cliche so funny, but I did. In reality, I am the more likely person to want to talk about "us."
I have always felt like my brain didn't really work the same way everyone else's did, so that has made me fascinated with how different people think. Even more so, once I was in a serious relationship then married I was amazed by how we come from completely different angles at things. I grew up my whole life thinking of the female brain as similar to the male brain with just a few preferences wired differently. While Golden and I think alike in a lot of things, our brains are very obviously more foundationally different than a few hardwired preferences.
I feel I have some pretty good reasons for wanting to understand relationships and the differences between men and women. First of all, it only makes sense that I would want to understand Golden and what makes her happy. Second, and almost as important, is the fact that I want to help NJ and CH have healthy relationships when they are old enough, and it has been my observation that the people most unhappy in relationships are among those who least understand the opposite sex.
Because of all of this, I have discovered that one of my recent guilty pleasures has been relationship-oriented books, especially those that discuss the differences between the sexes. The last book I read was actually one that Golden and I did together that I have heard so many other people discuss: The 5 Love Languages. While I found the book fascinating and it did start some very good discussions between Golden and me, I actually felt like I didn't perfectly fit into any of the five love languages discussed. For the purposes of the book I tested as requiring quality time. I did not feel that the description of someone who needs quality time perfectly described me, but I enjoyed going through the book anyway. A guilty pleasure is a guilty pleasure.
I am already figuring out what my next relationship/differences between the sexes book will be after I graduate this May. That's just one of the reasons that I am hopeful for a good summer.
Second Part:
Because I have historically struggled to understand what is romantic I subscribed to the the romantic tip of the week at TheRomantic.com a few months back. I found the website through a book of romance ideas. Since it is a romance mailing list I would expect that mostly men in need of ideas would be on the list. Apparently, I would expect wrong because the mailing a few days ago had an advertisement for a book for women wanting more out of their relationships. The ad intrigued me enough for the reasons that I have already mentioned in this post that I clicked on it and read through the page advertising the book. There is a lot there that I almost posted about, but I decided to limit it to the following slightly reduced paragraph from the website.
Third Part:
I cannot count how many marriages I have seen where I think that those two people are fortunate to have found each other because no one else would have put up with (fill in the blank for him) or (fill in the blank for her). I am wondering if this is a cause or an effect. Are people very prone to find others who can deal with their quirks or am I just noticing the quirks that weren't addressed because they weren't that important to the spouse? Even more weird: Are the things that I think are so undesirable actually the same things that attracted their spouse in the first place?
I think wondering about the obvious quirks is probably a bit unfair, though. If I use myself as an example, I would not be overly modest if I were to say that anyone who thinks that I am a catch is either crazy or the one person who married me. Everyone has issues that make them challenging to live with and mine would probably drive most people batty in ways they can only dream. My very last roommate in college told me as I was moving out, "You're a good friend but a horrible roommate. You probably think the same of me." I did.* One of the best things about a good marriage is that you've found someone who will put up with your stuff if you can just find a way to put up with theirs.
* Since former roommates of mine read this blog on occasion I should note that this conversation did not happen with anyone who knows about this blog. I am quite sure that the person who said this wouldn't mind me posting it, though.
First Part:
When Golden and I were first married I used to joke a lot about the cliche couple where she wants to talk about "us" and he wants nothing to do with it. I don't know why I found that specific cliche so funny, but I did. In reality, I am the more likely person to want to talk about "us."
I have always felt like my brain didn't really work the same way everyone else's did, so that has made me fascinated with how different people think. Even more so, once I was in a serious relationship then married I was amazed by how we come from completely different angles at things. I grew up my whole life thinking of the female brain as similar to the male brain with just a few preferences wired differently. While Golden and I think alike in a lot of things, our brains are very obviously more foundationally different than a few hardwired preferences.
I feel I have some pretty good reasons for wanting to understand relationships and the differences between men and women. First of all, it only makes sense that I would want to understand Golden and what makes her happy. Second, and almost as important, is the fact that I want to help NJ and CH have healthy relationships when they are old enough, and it has been my observation that the people most unhappy in relationships are among those who least understand the opposite sex.
Because of all of this, I have discovered that one of my recent guilty pleasures has been relationship-oriented books, especially those that discuss the differences between the sexes. The last book I read was actually one that Golden and I did together that I have heard so many other people discuss: The 5 Love Languages. While I found the book fascinating and it did start some very good discussions between Golden and me, I actually felt like I didn't perfectly fit into any of the five love languages discussed. For the purposes of the book I tested as requiring quality time. I did not feel that the description of someone who needs quality time perfectly described me, but I enjoyed going through the book anyway. A guilty pleasure is a guilty pleasure.
I am already figuring out what my next relationship/differences between the sexes book will be after I graduate this May. That's just one of the reasons that I am hopeful for a good summer.
Second Part:
Because I have historically struggled to understand what is romantic I subscribed to the the romantic tip of the week at TheRomantic.com a few months back. I found the website through a book of romance ideas. Since it is a romance mailing list I would expect that mostly men in need of ideas would be on the list. Apparently, I would expect wrong because the mailing a few days ago had an advertisement for a book for women wanting more out of their relationships. The ad intrigued me enough for the reasons that I have already mentioned in this post that I clicked on it and read through the page advertising the book. There is a lot there that I almost posted about, but I decided to limit it to the following slightly reduced paragraph from the website.
"If you're like most women, you probably love talking to your girlfriends about your relationship troubles, and -- yikes! -- asking them for relationship advice... unless she herself has a successful relationship with a man (very important!) -- it's unwise to take relationship advice or tips from your girlfriend (or your mother, sister, cousin or aunt, for that matter)."I had to post this because, while it is a pretty obvious hard sell, there is one thing in there that is kind of true. No disrespect meant to single folks, but single friends who are the opposite sex of the person you are interested in are rarely the people to turn to for serious relationship advice. The longer you are in a healthy relationship the more accurate a picture you have of what are proper expectations from the relationship. It's next to impossible to give good relationship advice without a clear understanding of what expectations are realistic. Bad advice could very well lead you down either the path of expecting too much or the path of settling for too little.
Third Part:
I cannot count how many marriages I have seen where I think that those two people are fortunate to have found each other because no one else would have put up with (fill in the blank for him) or (fill in the blank for her). I am wondering if this is a cause or an effect. Are people very prone to find others who can deal with their quirks or am I just noticing the quirks that weren't addressed because they weren't that important to the spouse? Even more weird: Are the things that I think are so undesirable actually the same things that attracted their spouse in the first place?
I think wondering about the obvious quirks is probably a bit unfair, though. If I use myself as an example, I would not be overly modest if I were to say that anyone who thinks that I am a catch is either crazy or the one person who married me. Everyone has issues that make them challenging to live with and mine would probably drive most people batty in ways they can only dream. My very last roommate in college told me as I was moving out, "You're a good friend but a horrible roommate. You probably think the same of me." I did.* One of the best things about a good marriage is that you've found someone who will put up with your stuff if you can just find a way to put up with theirs.
* Since former roommates of mine read this blog on occasion I should note that this conversation did not happen with anyone who knows about this blog. I am quite sure that the person who said this wouldn't mind me posting it, though.
Monday, May 18, 2009
the case for television
I was asked recently what Golden and I do together, or what we have done together, as a couple. I hesitated before answering because some people appear to look down on this, but we have always watched TV and gone to movies together. We do other things as well, but our "us" time has always been largely comprised of TV and movies. My question is why should we feel bad about our television habits? I have heard a few arguments which I will detail below.
It's unhealthy
While I agree that excessive TV watching can be unhealthy because it is associated with a lack of activity, so can excessive book reading. I don't feel that the health argument applies to me because if I watched less television I would not be replacing that time with exercise. I would be replacing it with Internet, gaming, and reading time, none of which is active.
It rots the brain
There are shows that I believe have to decrease the intelligence of the audience, but I think those very rare. Actually, if we are to believe that books, theater, and music make people more intelligent, it seems counter-intuitive to believe that entertainment built from these things (even the mass-market kind) would do the opposite. Someone I used to work with once compared Shakespeare's writings to soap operas in a less than positive way, and I wonder if more people wouldn't agree if the Bard were to write today.
It thwarts creativity
One of the arguments go that, while with books you have to visualize everything that is happening yourself, with television your experience is more passive. This could be true, but my experience tells me that my experience is only passive for slowly-paced shows, and this mimics my experience with slowly-paced books as well. As an example, when I read Captain's Courageous in high school I really had to fight to stay engaged in the story. My brain was not becoming more creative for the experience.
I think that watching shows and movies that pose scenarios that cause us to ask what we would do in a specific situation or perhaps speculate some unknowns about a story (Lost comes to mind) can actually make people more creative because the creative parts of their brains are forced to become engaged.
It negatively impacts culture
The negative influences of television probably outweigh the positives, but I hold to the belief that this is because many of the people who could make a positive impact through television have directed their efforts to other things. One possible solution to this would be to support shows that positively impact culture and to encourage others to do the same.
There are other arguments against television as well, and some are probably valid. My main point is, though, that television is not any more a vast cultural wasteland than a lot of things that are seen as culturally redeeming. Is going to the play Legally Blonde (or Grease, or Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang, et al) really culturally superior to catching it as a weekend TV movie special?
Now that I have staked out one position, perhaps someone reading this has some thoughts to counter mine. If you do, you know how to air them.
It's unhealthy
While I agree that excessive TV watching can be unhealthy because it is associated with a lack of activity, so can excessive book reading. I don't feel that the health argument applies to me because if I watched less television I would not be replacing that time with exercise. I would be replacing it with Internet, gaming, and reading time, none of which is active.
It rots the brain
There are shows that I believe have to decrease the intelligence of the audience, but I think those very rare. Actually, if we are to believe that books, theater, and music make people more intelligent, it seems counter-intuitive to believe that entertainment built from these things (even the mass-market kind) would do the opposite. Someone I used to work with once compared Shakespeare's writings to soap operas in a less than positive way, and I wonder if more people wouldn't agree if the Bard were to write today.
It thwarts creativity
One of the arguments go that, while with books you have to visualize everything that is happening yourself, with television your experience is more passive. This could be true, but my experience tells me that my experience is only passive for slowly-paced shows, and this mimics my experience with slowly-paced books as well. As an example, when I read Captain's Courageous in high school I really had to fight to stay engaged in the story. My brain was not becoming more creative for the experience.
I think that watching shows and movies that pose scenarios that cause us to ask what we would do in a specific situation or perhaps speculate some unknowns about a story (Lost comes to mind) can actually make people more creative because the creative parts of their brains are forced to become engaged.
It negatively impacts culture
The negative influences of television probably outweigh the positives, but I hold to the belief that this is because many of the people who could make a positive impact through television have directed their efforts to other things. One possible solution to this would be to support shows that positively impact culture and to encourage others to do the same.
There are other arguments against television as well, and some are probably valid. My main point is, though, that television is not any more a vast cultural wasteland than a lot of things that are seen as culturally redeeming. Is going to the play Legally Blonde (or Grease, or Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang, et al) really culturally superior to catching it as a weekend TV movie special?
Now that I have staked out one position, perhaps someone reading this has some thoughts to counter mine. If you do, you know how to air them.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
what i'm supposed to be
When I was in high school I got the bright idea to write a subject guide of the Bible for my own personal use. The idea was that I was going to read through the entire Bible and write down the reference of every verse to every issue I knew. It was a herculean task for me, and I did get quite a ways through it, but I stopped on it for two reasons. The first problem was that it simply took too much time, and the second was that I did not know how people with different doctrines interpreted specific passages of Scripture. There were simply too many times when I wasn't sure what issues should be linked to what Scripture passages.
When I started that guide I thought that, if the Bible is directly from God, I would be able to get a specific picture of the type of life God expected from me using such a guide. I thought that if I noticed a pattern of specific virtues and vices showing up a lot, then those were the important things to pay attention to in my life. As I noted, this was easier said than done. There are many passages of Scripture that are infuriatingly difficult to interpret in a way that they can be referenced in a subject guide.
Tonight, though, I started thinking about a similar project that I am seriously considering undertaking. I am thinking about reading through the Bible and marking down different people's virtues, vices, and all of the in between, then seeing what the Bible says about that specific person. What behaviors marked the people who were close to God and what behaviors marked those who weren't? There is a very simple reason I want to do this.
Probably the thing that most struck me in the book that I read, Why Men Hate Going to Church, was that the number one thing that men who were polled would like to learn in a church setting is what true manliness is. I am one of the men who wants to know. Most of what I know the church expects of men is summarized in the Promise Keepers' seven promises. If this is the true definition of what God expects from me, though, that is quite depressing. Something about it all feels inadequate. I just can't quite put my finger on what is inadequate.
I think that conflicts among my nature as a man, what I learned in church, and what I read in the Bible are what ultimately drove me to start the subject guide. I have long known that many of the men in the Bible who were the closest to God would never have come anywhere near fitting the model of manhood that I understood to be Godly. Outside of Moses and Joseph almost no Old Testament men would fit in a modern church. Because of that, I want to know what I know to be right about what God expects that is wrong and vice versa.
I want to know why deeply flawed people like Abraham, David, and all of the disciples were able to be close to God in a way that few else in history have ever dreamed. I want to know if there are specific traits that God consistently expected in everyone He used. I want to know if there are specific vices that always resulted in God's refusal to commune with that person. I want to know what personality changes God expected of key people in the Bible.
We'll find out over the next few years whether this is all talk or whether I actually put some effort into this initiative. I do hate starting things unless I know that I will finish them. This would be a useful reference to have, though.
When I started that guide I thought that, if the Bible is directly from God, I would be able to get a specific picture of the type of life God expected from me using such a guide. I thought that if I noticed a pattern of specific virtues and vices showing up a lot, then those were the important things to pay attention to in my life. As I noted, this was easier said than done. There are many passages of Scripture that are infuriatingly difficult to interpret in a way that they can be referenced in a subject guide.
Tonight, though, I started thinking about a similar project that I am seriously considering undertaking. I am thinking about reading through the Bible and marking down different people's virtues, vices, and all of the in between, then seeing what the Bible says about that specific person. What behaviors marked the people who were close to God and what behaviors marked those who weren't? There is a very simple reason I want to do this.
Probably the thing that most struck me in the book that I read, Why Men Hate Going to Church, was that the number one thing that men who were polled would like to learn in a church setting is what true manliness is. I am one of the men who wants to know. Most of what I know the church expects of men is summarized in the Promise Keepers' seven promises. If this is the true definition of what God expects from me, though, that is quite depressing. Something about it all feels inadequate. I just can't quite put my finger on what is inadequate.
I think that conflicts among my nature as a man, what I learned in church, and what I read in the Bible are what ultimately drove me to start the subject guide. I have long known that many of the men in the Bible who were the closest to God would never have come anywhere near fitting the model of manhood that I understood to be Godly. Outside of Moses and Joseph almost no Old Testament men would fit in a modern church. Because of that, I want to know what I know to be right about what God expects that is wrong and vice versa.
I want to know why deeply flawed people like Abraham, David, and all of the disciples were able to be close to God in a way that few else in history have ever dreamed. I want to know if there are specific traits that God consistently expected in everyone He used. I want to know if there are specific vices that always resulted in God's refusal to commune with that person. I want to know what personality changes God expected of key people in the Bible.
We'll find out over the next few years whether this is all talk or whether I actually put some effort into this initiative. I do hate starting things unless I know that I will finish them. This would be a useful reference to have, though.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
sunday school
I have been filling in as the teacher in our young adult Sunday School class over the last few weeks. We are going through the book Celebration of Discipline, which is certainly not a bad book, but it is a challenging one to use as a lesson guide. The book can be a very valuable guide to growing your spiritual life and getting closer to God. For someone with limited free time, though, it reads like a series of things that you should do to be more spiritual, but that you can't do because you have other things that take up your time. It is also difficult to turn topics such as fasting or solitude into things that hold people's interest for an entire lesson period.
I was discussing this with Golden and got the idea to look around and see what other materials are available so that, once we complete this series, we can do another that might be easier to teach. So far, I am feeling that I must be a bit overly picky. I don't want people to wonder why they bothered getting up and going to class, so any series I teach has to have meat. I don't want to torture the people in class, either, so I need something that is somewhat entertaining as well. I can't be spending my entire weekend creating lessons, either, so I can't just write my own lessons as I have in the past.
The drawback in doing a search for Sunday School lessons is that I have to filter through a ton of children's series to find even a few adult programs. That is deeply disturbing. Do people really think that Biblical learning ends at age thirteen? Another drawback is that experience tells me that a large percentage of the adult materials will be lacking as well. As an example, I don't like that most series' lesson questions simply fish for predetermined answers.
Why aren't there more Sunday School lessons that present actual theologically useful teaching in a way that isn't ridiculously dry? I know I would use them if they existed. For all of the Christian literature that exists, you would think that someone somewhere would have noticed the need for a Sunday School material overhaul. That would be far more useful than most of the books that litter most Christian book stores.
Also, am I the only one who wishes that the phrase "Sunday School" was changed to something less nerdy? I think the term has too many negative connotations. I absolutely hate continually typing that phrase on my blog. Maybe I could come up with a code word for it that doesn't annoy me as much. How about, "Pre-Service Coffee Time"? That's the best I can come up with right now.
I was discussing this with Golden and got the idea to look around and see what other materials are available so that, once we complete this series, we can do another that might be easier to teach. So far, I am feeling that I must be a bit overly picky. I don't want people to wonder why they bothered getting up and going to class, so any series I teach has to have meat. I don't want to torture the people in class, either, so I need something that is somewhat entertaining as well. I can't be spending my entire weekend creating lessons, either, so I can't just write my own lessons as I have in the past.
The drawback in doing a search for Sunday School lessons is that I have to filter through a ton of children's series to find even a few adult programs. That is deeply disturbing. Do people really think that Biblical learning ends at age thirteen? Another drawback is that experience tells me that a large percentage of the adult materials will be lacking as well. As an example, I don't like that most series' lesson questions simply fish for predetermined answers.
Why aren't there more Sunday School lessons that present actual theologically useful teaching in a way that isn't ridiculously dry? I know I would use them if they existed. For all of the Christian literature that exists, you would think that someone somewhere would have noticed the need for a Sunday School material overhaul. That would be far more useful than most of the books that litter most Christian book stores.
Also, am I the only one who wishes that the phrase "Sunday School" was changed to something less nerdy? I think the term has too many negative connotations. I absolutely hate continually typing that phrase on my blog. Maybe I could come up with a code word for it that doesn't annoy me as much. How about, "Pre-Service Coffee Time"? That's the best I can come up with right now.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
men and church
A couple of weeks ago I finished reading the book Why Men Hate Going to Church by David Murrow. I have wanted to post some thoughts on it for a while, but I have not taken the time until now to type them out. Some of this is a rehash of an earlier post, but I think it is worth the rehash.I have made it no secret that, throughout my life, church has often felt like it wasn't really designed for me. I definitely see great value in church and I am not looking for a reason to skip. I just want to better understand why I feel this way. My rationale goes that if I can gain this understanding I will be able to figure out how to make the experience more enjoyable and worthwhile for myself and others who may be experiencing the same thing.
One thing that I should note is that I really like my church. A lot of the masculinity problems that plague a lot of churches do not exist in my church. I think this can be credited to my pastor.
Probably the most discussed point in the book is that church appeals to older folks and women more than younger folks and men because it offers security rather than challenge. Someone who values security values stability, predictability, nurturing, and support, all of which one can find at a typical church. Someone who values challenge values risk, variety, competition, and independence. These are not adjectives that describe most churches. Women and the elderly are statistically more likely to desire security, and men and the young are statistically more likely to desire challenge. This pattern is evidenced in the typical church pews, where there are many more female and elderly parishioners than male and younger ones.
Some of the other sticking points that the book mentions are as follows. (This is a bit long, so don't feel bad for skipping it.)
- Men have short attention spans during lecture formats. This makes Sunday School and sermon lectures especially ineffective. The author recommends limiting the number of points in the lesson or sermon (unlike this post), taking breaks, and going heavy on the visual aids. I know that I operate better in a conversational environment than in a lecture so that is how I teach. I am sure there are people for whom this does not work, though.
- Most men are not comfortable with passive-aggressive conflict. Almost all church conflict is passive-aggressive. The author's recommendation is to encourage being more direct in conflict in the church so long as the point is to clear the air and move on.
- Women are generally better readers than men. Since a lot of what happens in a church service or Sunday School class relies on reading, this is uncomfortable for a lot of men. This is actually one which isn't really a big deal to me as should be evidenced by this wordy post.
- When women are stressed they are more likely to want to get support and talk about their problems with friends at a setting like church. Men are more likely to want to work out the problems for themselves, which leads to fewer men than women in church during rough times.
- Churches are full of programs and not projects. Programs do not tend to provide the goals that men usually need to work toward. Most men work much better in projects where there is a beginning, an end, and success is clearly defined. The book encourages structuring ministries around individual projects to encourage more men to participate.
- Many men view church as less than masculine. The book makes a major generalization here that I agree with, and I am usually pretty careful around generalizations. Masculinity is far more important to almost all straight men than femininity is to almost all straight women. It is far more challenging for a man to take a woman's role than vice versa. I can elaborate in as much detail as needed for anyone who has questions about this, but it can be illustrated with the following question. How willing are you to wear clothes obviously designed for the opposite sex in public?
- Men hate feeling incompetent, and there are a lot of opportunities for that in a church service. Most men do not excel at a lot of the things that they may be expected to do at church, so some avoid it altogether.
- There is absolutely nothing appealing to a man about becoming Ned Flanders.
- One point that is important to me is that many men, myself included, often feel that they cannot openly challenge things they may disagree with at church. This goes back to the contrast between security and challenge. People who strongly value security view expressions of disagreement negatively. I frankly stink at toeing the line. There are many times that Golden has to hear me explain why I disagreed with something someone said on the drive home from church because I am kicking myself for not devising a way of making my opinions known in an acceptable way.
- Themes and word choices in church tend to be feminine, stressing weakness, relationships, support, and feelings. The loaded phrases of "relationship" and "intimacy" with God are also used a lot. Most straight men are a little uncomfortable with the idea of seeking an intimate relationship with another man, even if he is named "Jesus." An example that the author mentions of a particularly unwise Christian book title can be found here.
- Music in church tends to focus on a relationship with Jesus that can be frankly read as mildly erotic. Since Jesus was a man, that makes the music seem homoerotic to some men.
- Men's ministry is essentially women's ministry for men because the focus is generally on socialization and lecture. I have spent a lot of time trying to figure how that can be changed, because it needs to be. I would not be averse to doing more things with the men's ministry at my church if it were fun and/or purposeful.
- Femininity defines holiness in church. I have discussed this before. Basically, I believe that the Godliness that is pushed by most conservative churches is designed to make the congregation into proper ladies. There really is not much room for masculinity in most church definitions of holiness.
- What is true manliness?
- What is true success?
- How do I deal with guilt feelings?
- Is purity possible for men?
- How can we nurture family life?
- What is Christian leadership?
- What are the basic disciplines of a Christian man?
- What ministry skills need to be developed?
- What is biblical business conduct?
- What is integrity?
I do believe that Murrow's book is a must read for anyone who is struggling to get a man into church as well as anyone who is in leadership within a church. It is especially important for women in leadership positions or seeking leadership positions in church, because the book notes that the disparity between men and women is the greatest in churches where women hold high positions. As unfair and sexist as it may seem, this implies that female ministry leaders have to compensate a little to have a healthy and balanced church.
How well the church is able to reach men will absolutely define the strength of the church in the next generation. The stakes could not be higher.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
a cat with a pipe
I am amazed that the commercial above is actually for a film festival since it pretty effectively illustrates the feelings of those who don't get film festivals. I am wondering if the purpose is to keep those who don't like film festivals away, or if it is to make those who appreciate independent film feel superior in that they get it.
I may not always be the brightest bulb, as they say, but I don't think I am stupid. I am surprised, then, by how often the video above epitomizes my experience with works that are supposed to be heady. I think, and I have speculated on this before, that most of the stuff that I do not get is usually related to the emotional content of the book, movie, play, art, etc. Since I understand colorblindness, I compare my feelings about these works to my inability to see certain shades of color. I just don't understand certain nuances of red, and I just don't understand certain nuances of emotion.
One other thing I don't understand is why the people who do get certain artistic works (or at least who say they do) seem to credit it to superior intelligence or taste. I don't think that intelligence usually plays a role, and I think taste is subjective. To me that's the same as if I got arrogant over the fact that I think I appreciate a Chipotle fajita more than most people can. That kind of conceit borders on the ludicrous.
I guess this means that I won't be visiting any independent film festivals in the near future. As if that's a real shock.
Thursday, August 07, 2008
ant tv
Last night I was watching something on the Science Channel about driver ants. They are a form of army ant found mostly in Africa. Ever since reading Leiningen Versus the Ants in junior high (and maybe before that) I have always been intrigued by army ants.
In watching the hour-long episode of the driver ant two things occur to me. First, I wouldn't want to cross their path. They were shown systematically ripping apart everything in their path, probably the most disturbing of which was a crab that they dismembered from the inside out.
Second, I have a very pertinent question. I wonder how they recruit the cameramen to do jobs like this. Think about it. This person's job is to get well within striking distance of a swarm of millions of these little animals whose heads are basically just big mandibles. Not only that, they have been known to attack humans, though they don't normally do so. If something went wrong it would be an absolutely horrible way to go. That's enough to give me a new appreciation for my office job.
In watching the hour-long episode of the driver ant two things occur to me. First, I wouldn't want to cross their path. They were shown systematically ripping apart everything in their path, probably the most disturbing of which was a crab that they dismembered from the inside out.
Second, I have a very pertinent question. I wonder how they recruit the cameramen to do jobs like this. Think about it. This person's job is to get well within striking distance of a swarm of millions of these little animals whose heads are basically just big mandibles. Not only that, they have been known to attack humans, though they don't normally do so. If something went wrong it would be an absolutely horrible way to go. That's enough to give me a new appreciation for my office job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
