I Break My Heart

The greatest personal misconception of all time is believing that someone else is responsible for your feelings.

Continuing The Quest For Equality

The writing is on the proverbial wall for the end of the heterosexual hold on the institution of government sanctioned marriage between two people as three states voted to legalize same-sex marriage in this November election - a very good step in the right direction of equal rights. Personally I don't endorse government intervention in matters of human relationships at all, but the fact remains.  So within the confines of reality, whether a bourgeois straight-couple marriage, or new radical in-vogue same-sex marriage, the government designed institution (that codifies and dehumanizes natural love relationships) remains discriminatory toward multiple-partnered espousal relationships (polygamy). The new marriage laws probably don't include gender neutrality either - just a hunch, I don't know for sure.

There are three specifically understood forms of polygamy: polygyny (one man having multiple wives), polyandry (one woman having multiple husbands), and group marriage (multiple partners of some combination of polygyny and polyandry).  Marriages of this type of multiplicity (more than two) are not sanctioned by current legal systems in the United States which of course is discriminatory toward people who partner up with more than one, and wish to be "legally" conjoined with each of their respective sweethearts.

With the advent of legal same-sex marriage between two people, the evolution toward legal, multiple-partner marriage remains the logical next step in the continued quest for equality.  Of course any marriage dynamic of multiple partners will require new rules and regulations regarding insurance, employment benefits, etc., as that is the only function of government meddling that could serve any purpose.

The definitions of such regulations need to be completely flexible to avoid discriminatory restrictions. Said flexibility must include static (one to one) and dynamic (one to many) wedlock provisions irrespective of gender of course (which would inherently include gender neutral people). These provisions must include any dynamic desired, including definitions for an equilateral state of matrimony in which all partners may be married to each participating partner, aggregate dissolution contingencies, and so on.

Additionally, and with specific regard to those who do not identify with one of the gender binary (male/female), the first step logically should be the elimination of gender verbiage from all legal terminology regarding marriage, and other legal documentation.  Eliminating the gender factor and just referring to the participants as espoused partners, associates, whatever the situation warrants, is much less linguistically restrictive, and consequently much easier for the minions of government to litigate and indoctrinate into the legal system.

On Feminism

I was asked to read  Melissa McEwan's blog on feminism 101 and supply my opinion on the article, ostensibly so my feminism sensitivity could be evaluated.  Despite being an avid feminist, I accepted the request for possible further edification on the matter if any were forthcoming.

I agree with most of the concepts presented by Ms. McEwan, and have always adhered to the recommendations she makes, so reading her blog for self-evaluation purposes was on the whole, somewhat pointless; still, an interesting read, and contains topics that compel me to comment.

On "off-limits humor"; I have long upheld the belief that there is always an underlying sting couched in allegedly innocent jokes about, well about so many subjects – I grew up in a household that used sarcasm and “comic” witticisms ostensibly in fun but in truth were simply demeaning and cruel. Everyone laughs, even the person being made sport of, but inside it hurts. So I don't make such "jokes". I don't do snide bullshit jokes about anything that might be hurtful to someone.  So it was refreshing to read a like-minded perspective in Ms. McEwan's blog.

I have never been one of those who try to ally a feminist against certain types of women “Surely, we're all in agreement that Britney Spears... whatever. Such nonsense would require that I first care or otherwise have feelings about a woman's choice of gender presentation, feminine or otherwise.

The “outside looking in” perspective consigned to male appreciation of feminism as prescribed by Ms. McEwan is, and should be objective (as should all evaluations of one's perspective), but being on the outside as a limitation on the observable perspective does not really apply to me as I do not gender identify as either male or female - a perspective wholly unattended by Ms. McEwan. The “pronouncements of similitude ” paragraph describes a ludicrous argument used by the weak-minded anti-feminist. Again, the author's exposition of this amazingly lame tactic is simply elegant. In my opinion the “stereotype” paragraph is an extension on the “Britney Spears” paragraph, and it completes the sentiment. By any other label she identifies the essential sub-categorical generalizing and the not-so subtle intent of sustaining subjugation.

Altogether a really good article. I found myself moved deeply more than once while reading it – for the generations of sorrow that the message implies, and for all women everywhere because I know what Ms. McEwan describes is pervasive, and it breaks my fucking heart.


The Patriarchy hurts All of Us

by Nancy R. Smith

For every girl who is tired of acting weak when she is strong,
There is a boy tired of appearing strong when he feels vulnerable.

For every boy who is burdened with the constant expectation of knowing everything,
There is a girl tired of people not trusting her intelligence.

For every girl who is tired of being called over-sensitive,
There is a boy who fears to be gentle, to weep.

For every boy for whom competition is the only way to prove his masculinity,
There is a girl who is called unfeminine when she competes.

For every girl who throws out her E-Z-Bake oven,
There is a boy who wishes to find one.

For every boy struggling not to let advertising dictate his desires,
There is a girl facing the ad industry's attacks on her self-esteem.

For every girl who takes a step toward her liberation,
There is a boy who finds the way to freedom a little easier.


------------------

Fitness & Self-Image

The pandemic proportions of the visual phenomena and the fact that it even affects society’s most intelligent members is fascinating to me.  And I wish that I could claim to be above it, but I cannot.   Of course the visual is our first-line mechanism for determining objective reality, and that’s fine, but the importance placed on individual personal appearance by the populace of most modern societies seems to exceed basic instinct – perhaps exacerbated by the fact that the phenomena is artificially driven by various industries through the sundry vehicles of mass media.

It would be one thing if it were a health inspired issue, but appearance seems to be the driving force behind the trend toward a leaner collective.  However, though the popularity of the appearance of physical fitness is almost ubiquitous, actually managing the body image through fitness is still limited to a small minority.  So we are a society of corpulent constituents at one end of the physical spectrum (35.7% of the U.S. population is obese according to the CDC), about 13% physically fit at the other, and a majority of fitness want-to-be's in-between.  I like to think of myself as falling in the 13% camp of the fitness freaks, but my midsection measurement vetoes that illusion daily.

Sometimes the energy required to engage in my daily duties wears me down.  The simplicity of the mountain beckons me and I must obey – otherwise the emotive residuals gathered over the week will fester into something dark and ugly.  So as with Alice and her looking glass, I step through to the other side to share stories with the Walrus about many important things, but not cabbages or kings, and least of all what my workout routine for the day is going to include.  And the darkness of procrastination will wash over me as it so often does – and I will languish to return renewed on another day.  But I digress and ramble apparently.

It is very late.  And I am obviously near delirium.  But the condition of sleep mercilessly evades me (again).  It is my own fault – as mentioned I have been remiss in my exercise regimen, steeped in procrastination – so much that I can hardly call it a regimen.  So my mind, fueled by excess blood sugar, continues to process late at night despite my having clicked ‘shutdown’.  Hopefully the weekend adventures will rekindle the workout energy and hopefully the following week’s daily toil will not drain me of the energy needed to climb onto the stairway to nowhere (Stairmaster®) to fully engage in my imaginary fitness fanaticism.  

To Be Perfectly Honest...

The preface "to be honest... " on any comment logically indicates that other comments by the same person are probably less than ingenuous, or to some degree, are lacking in veracity. Considering truthfulness to be one of the cardinal virtues one should always follow, at least that is what we are taught (or used to be taught), I find myself wondering how often one actually tells or hears unequivocal truth. Ironically the grade-school story used to illustrate the virtue of telling the truth (George Washington and the cherry tree), never happened. But I digress.

On asking around I found many people reportedly always tell the truth (wink and a smile on that). A good many others stated that lying to protect their own, or a loved one's reputation was acceptable. Most people said that honesty stops when the need arises to protect someone from harm, or even just to protect someone from hurt feelings.  Almost everyone defended minor embellishments -- "little white lies" (a rather antiquated racist expression if you ask me). But some folks unabashedly espoused honesty as the only policy, lambasting the unnecessary evil of lying, and abjectly denying any past or present perpetrated fallacies.  To wit I responded, "but you are lying right now." This effectively ended most of those conversations.

My little survey results make me question the moral designation that we assign to the concept of honesty.  Apparently it is something without any hard and fast rules since we can decide in accordance to our own purposes which lies we shall deem necessary in the name of protecting the feelings or reputation of someone else, and which lies should otherwise be considered immoral. In reality, it comes down to outright self preservation. And in any given critical circumstance, we all will, and do fabricate an untruth or otherwise cover up something that is true. We say that we lie for the protection of loved ones (or whomever), but I submit that the lie is told more for the purpose of protecting the relationship that we hold dear which is an act of self-preservation – because if the truth in some way harms a loved one, then the act of telling the truth may very well insight consequences that may remove us in some degree, or entirely, from the valued relationship that we otherwise would have protected with a lie.

Oh no!  Did I just denounce all of those glorious, self-less acts of deceit by pointing out that the act itself is indeed intrinsically selfish?  Yes I did. But don't misunderstand -- I completely support selfish intentions so long as they do not harm others. After all, selfishness is what puts food in your belly and a roof over your head. And that leads me to conclude that telling a lie to protect someone, thereby maintaining harmony in your relationship or environment, indeed is not a bad thing - at least not from the perspective of the person you are protecting, and yourself of course. It is damned near instinctual. Or at least genetically encoded as people have survived the millennia on just such instincts. I am reminded of a scene in the movie "Schindler's List" when a Nazi officer, after shooting someone for not revealing the identity of a thief, asked a boy for the same information, and the boy claimed that the thief was the man who the officer just shot.  A lie that saves your life,  or the lives of others in such a circumstance, can be considered nothing less than morally virtuous.

But then honesty must have its place somewhere in the stack of moral virtues does it not? Of course it does – and for exactly the same reason that dishonesty has its place – self preservation. If you are dishonest or deceitful with your partner you are compromising the relationship that you hold dear, which will in all likeliness lead ultimately the demise of the relationship – and rightfully so. If you misrepresent yourself in applying for a job, your ability deficiency may result in your termination, and damaged reputation..... and so on, and so on.

Therein lies the truth. The moral value of honesty is a matter of expediency. We lie or should certainly speak truthfully depending on which will better serve our needs.  So in the name of what I have irreducibly exposed as common sense -- stop lying about lying and just tell the truth. To be perfectly honest, we lie.

~