I just read an article about Mike Pence, America's new Vice President. In it Pence is quoted as saying that he would never be willing to have a meal with a woman other than his wife unless someone else was present. The article concludes, rightly so, that this is a huge problem for someone in a position of power like Pence is. It restricts his ability to interact with women, and thus pushes women out of his circle. Women have enough difficulty getting to the top of the power pyramid as it is.
It is entirely okay for people to have whatever rules they want as part of their relationship. Whether you are Mike Pence and can't have lunch with a woman, or whether you want to be collared and chained, spending your days playing fetch and being called Rover, if everyone agrees to the relationship rules then they can have them.
But you really do have an obligation to consider how your rules affect the people around you and how they are influenced by the complex social pressures that are inherent in our culture. If a black person says they want to only date black people, and a white person says they only want to date white people, these are different things. Racism is real, and you need to spend time thinking about how your attractions and relationships are affected by it if you want to do the right thing by the people around you. Other entrenched bigotry is the same way.
I chose the two examples above deliberately because they are both about equally unthinkable for me personally. If I had ever tried to tell Wendy that she couldn't have a meal with a man without a chaperone she would have told me to shove it, called out my heteronormativity, viciously mocked my sexism, and broken up with me. Not necessarily in that order.
If she had done the same with me I would have assumed she was joking and laughed my ass off. If she was serious I would have broken up with her right away and wondered how the hell I was so wrong.
The collaring / Rover thing would have been completely different. My 'hell no' reaction would have been roughly the same, but I would have just said hell no and then kept on doing whatever I was doing before. Pretty sure Wendy would still have yelled at me if the roles were reversed, and that tennis ball would definitely have gone un-fetched.
In any case Pence's rules are hilarious when I consider my life these days. If Wendy wanted to have dinner with a man and ended up having sex on the table the only thing that would worry me is cleaning up the mess, and maybe dressing incidental wounds from forks or shattered crockery.
OKCupid has a question on it that goes like this:
Imagine that you come home to find a partner pouring red wine all over a stranger's naked body and then licking it off. Which, if any of the following, would bother you most?
1. The spilled wine.
2. The cheating.
3. The fact that I was not invited to join in.
4. Actually this would not bother me.
I find this question hilarious because such a large subset of the population would look at it as an impossibility, a ridiculous thing put in there so you can answer "The spilled wine" and have a giggle at how silly it is.
Whereas I honestly want to answer 1, 3, and 4. I don't want to have to clean up spilled wine, that is super annoying. I wouldn't actually be bothered by not being invited, but I would hope to be invited once I arrived home and witnessed the event.
It isn't as though this has actually happened to me. But if it did, I would definitely brag about it.
Sometimes when I think about these things I am amazed at how my perspective has shifted. On one hand I recognize that I am in the minority, but there is a big part of me that sees Pence's rules and laughs, thinking "Hah, how absurd!" and then realizes that most people see his rules as either normal, expected, or perfectly understandable, and they think my rules are evil, ludicrous, or dangerous. I am stuck in this place where what I do now seems like the only reasonable way to exist while being entirely aware that hardly anybody else does it this way. I find myself sometimes hearing people talking about what they can't do and I wonder why in the world that would be so, and then realize "Oh right. Monogamy. That thing everyone does."
Monogamy is all right. But that version of controlling, jealous, heteronormative monogamy that assumes that every interaction between men and women must be about sex and nobody can be trusted to honour their commitments... yuck.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Real life is stranger than fiction
I have lately been watching some House of Cards. Political maneuvering, backroom dealmaking, and occasional murder are the order of the day in that show. It depicts an evil, narcissistic, dangerous man as President, one who is convinced of his ability to make deals with anyone and push his agenda through.
The politicians in the show are all over the map. Some are true believers, fighting for their cause. Some are simply power hungry. There are pragmatists who compromise to try to get things done, and there are purists who will torpedo anything that isn't exactly what they want. The dysfunctionality of that made up American leadership is mindblowing.
Sometimes I think to myself "Wow, these characters are ridiculous. How do they come up with this stuff.?"
Then I read about actual US politics.
You know, where a evil, narcissistic, dangerous man who is convinced of his own supernatural dealmaking ability is President. Where legislation can't be passed because it is simultaneously hated by people on every possible side. People who love the direction the legislation is going, and who have *zero* hope of pushing through their own version, refuse to vote for a compromise solution because it isn't pure enough. The Republicans control all the branches of government right now and still can't pass a new health care bill, despite spending seven years talking about how literally anything would be better.
The thing that made me shake my head tonight is that it isn't even as though the characters in House of Cards are exaggerated. All the crazy stuff that happens there isn't crazier than real life... it is in fact a scaled down version of real life. Because if you actually put stuff as crazy as real life in the show, no one would believe it.
The politicians in the show are all over the map. Some are true believers, fighting for their cause. Some are simply power hungry. There are pragmatists who compromise to try to get things done, and there are purists who will torpedo anything that isn't exactly what they want. The dysfunctionality of that made up American leadership is mindblowing.
Sometimes I think to myself "Wow, these characters are ridiculous. How do they come up with this stuff.?"
Then I read about actual US politics.
You know, where a evil, narcissistic, dangerous man who is convinced of his own supernatural dealmaking ability is President. Where legislation can't be passed because it is simultaneously hated by people on every possible side. People who love the direction the legislation is going, and who have *zero* hope of pushing through their own version, refuse to vote for a compromise solution because it isn't pure enough. The Republicans control all the branches of government right now and still can't pass a new health care bill, despite spending seven years talking about how literally anything would be better.
The thing that made me shake my head tonight is that it isn't even as though the characters in House of Cards are exaggerated. All the crazy stuff that happens there isn't crazier than real life... it is in fact a scaled down version of real life. Because if you actually put stuff as crazy as real life in the show, no one would believe it.
Sunday, March 26, 2017
The rest of my life
The past while I have been mulling over what to do with the rest of my life. Of course what that really means is that I need a new obsession for a year or so, it isn't really about the rest of my life, but it seems more interesting if I phrase it that way.
I have been thinking about what I do and the level of satisfaction it brings. I am a homemaker, but I think I am an odd one. Most people in that role either really love things about being a homemaker or just love raising children. They change their artwork on the walls to be seasonally appropriate, bake special cookies for different times of the year, take up crafts, or do other similar sorts of things.
The idea of me changing my artwork seasonally makes me giggle, and seasonal baking and knitting are much the same. Not that I deride anyone who wants to do it, but it sure ain't my thing.
Most of the time I talk about the things I do as not feeling important. Wendy gets to run off each day challenging herself, chasing her dreams, learning amazing new things and meeting all kinds of like minded people.
I get to do the dishes.
The dishes are not inspiring.
However, the dishes are a thing that is worth doing. Some of my previous jobs were almost entirely worthless from a 'making the world better' standpoint. One even made the world worse. It made me so frustrated to be doing work that might as well not be done. The dishes, though, those need cleaning. It isn't exciting work but I do feel a sense of satisfaction from doing it. When it is done I know I have finished something relevant, something that definitely isn't making the world worse. The dishes also don't take up all my time and they leave me room to do many other things.
I know deep down that an awful lot of work that people do is completely worthless. They attend meetings that bring no value. They fill out forms for no reason. They try things they know are counterproductive because someone above them wants to look good to someone further up yet and they don't care if it pans out because they will be promoted by then. Most people do work that has some real value, but everyone does a lot of totally pointless timewasting crap.
Shopping, doing the dishes, cleaning the sink, these are real things that need to happen.
What they don't offer is flow. Nothing in my basic duties does, unfortunately. I can't get into flow because all of the stuff I have to do is trivial. It won't challenge me. It doesn't make me push myself to be more than I was before.
This is something I have only just realized. I need to stop thinking of things as having utility to my mental health in general, but rather as having utility either as being good to do or hard to do. I need both. If I spend my life doing hard things but bring nothing to the world I won't be happy. This is why I would struggle as a professional poker player, say. I would love the play, it would bring me flow, but I would also feel like I was leeching off the world and being worthless. Whereas if all I do is sit at home knitting and cooking and cleaning I will not find flow, and though I will be useful I will not be fulfilled. There will be something missing.
I need both things. There isn't any real chance of me changing my profession at the moment so I will have plenty of useful things to do. That is well covered. I need to shop and scrub the toilet and make dinner. Those things aren't interesting, but they have real value to me in terms of feeling like I am bringing something to the world.
What I require is a better source of flow. I am currently playing World of Warcraft a lot, and sometimes that brings me flow but a lot of the time it is just a time sink much like a TV show that is interactive but with a crappy storyline. An enjoyable time sink, but not something that makes my life better, really.
I remember years ago I spent a ton of time modding Civilization 5. That was a task that definitely brought me flow for a great span of time. It was a combination of creating, analysis, and play that was superb. Other times when I have been building games have been similar. Perhaps that is what I need to return to - not any attempt to monetize game design, but just pure creation. I need another game that isn't quite there to seize me and force me to fix it, tinker with it, make it perfect.
The easiest way to achieve this is to start a new game from scratch, I suspect. In the past my games have always begun with a small moment of inspiration followed by months or years of grinding my way towards completion.
I suppose my conclusion is that I need an intense moment of inspiration, some moment of tremendous imagination, to give me a new thing to smash my mind against. I wonder if that is a thing I can just create, or if it is simply random.
I have been thinking about what I do and the level of satisfaction it brings. I am a homemaker, but I think I am an odd one. Most people in that role either really love things about being a homemaker or just love raising children. They change their artwork on the walls to be seasonally appropriate, bake special cookies for different times of the year, take up crafts, or do other similar sorts of things.
The idea of me changing my artwork seasonally makes me giggle, and seasonal baking and knitting are much the same. Not that I deride anyone who wants to do it, but it sure ain't my thing.
Most of the time I talk about the things I do as not feeling important. Wendy gets to run off each day challenging herself, chasing her dreams, learning amazing new things and meeting all kinds of like minded people.
I get to do the dishes.
The dishes are not inspiring.
However, the dishes are a thing that is worth doing. Some of my previous jobs were almost entirely worthless from a 'making the world better' standpoint. One even made the world worse. It made me so frustrated to be doing work that might as well not be done. The dishes, though, those need cleaning. It isn't exciting work but I do feel a sense of satisfaction from doing it. When it is done I know I have finished something relevant, something that definitely isn't making the world worse. The dishes also don't take up all my time and they leave me room to do many other things.
I know deep down that an awful lot of work that people do is completely worthless. They attend meetings that bring no value. They fill out forms for no reason. They try things they know are counterproductive because someone above them wants to look good to someone further up yet and they don't care if it pans out because they will be promoted by then. Most people do work that has some real value, but everyone does a lot of totally pointless timewasting crap.
Shopping, doing the dishes, cleaning the sink, these are real things that need to happen.
What they don't offer is flow. Nothing in my basic duties does, unfortunately. I can't get into flow because all of the stuff I have to do is trivial. It won't challenge me. It doesn't make me push myself to be more than I was before.
This is something I have only just realized. I need to stop thinking of things as having utility to my mental health in general, but rather as having utility either as being good to do or hard to do. I need both. If I spend my life doing hard things but bring nothing to the world I won't be happy. This is why I would struggle as a professional poker player, say. I would love the play, it would bring me flow, but I would also feel like I was leeching off the world and being worthless. Whereas if all I do is sit at home knitting and cooking and cleaning I will not find flow, and though I will be useful I will not be fulfilled. There will be something missing.
I need both things. There isn't any real chance of me changing my profession at the moment so I will have plenty of useful things to do. That is well covered. I need to shop and scrub the toilet and make dinner. Those things aren't interesting, but they have real value to me in terms of feeling like I am bringing something to the world.
What I require is a better source of flow. I am currently playing World of Warcraft a lot, and sometimes that brings me flow but a lot of the time it is just a time sink much like a TV show that is interactive but with a crappy storyline. An enjoyable time sink, but not something that makes my life better, really.
I remember years ago I spent a ton of time modding Civilization 5. That was a task that definitely brought me flow for a great span of time. It was a combination of creating, analysis, and play that was superb. Other times when I have been building games have been similar. Perhaps that is what I need to return to - not any attempt to monetize game design, but just pure creation. I need another game that isn't quite there to seize me and force me to fix it, tinker with it, make it perfect.
The easiest way to achieve this is to start a new game from scratch, I suspect. In the past my games have always begun with a small moment of inspiration followed by months or years of grinding my way towards completion.
I suppose my conclusion is that I need an intense moment of inspiration, some moment of tremendous imagination, to give me a new thing to smash my mind against. I wonder if that is a thing I can just create, or if it is simply random.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Low expectations, but not low enough.
I watched X-Men: Apocalypse on Monday. At midnight the construction crews outside my house were using some incredibly loud machine that was literally vibrating my condo from 12 floors away. Since sleep was not likely to come to me I had to figure out something else to do. The solution I came up with was to watch a bad superhero movie that I wouldn't mind quitting halfway through if the machine stopped.I went into Apocalypse with low expectations, you see. I knew the critics hated it. I picked it because I knew I would be willing to stop watching it partway through.
It failed to meet my expectations, even then.
When I think about superhero movies that utterly fail I find they have many things in common. They regularly try to shoehorn too many stories into the movie and end up with boring characters and rushed plot. Apocalypse did this spectacularly. It tried to have a character arc for Jean Grey, Magneto, Cyclops, Angel, Quicksilver, Storm, Professor X, and Mystique. That doesn't even include the main villain!
Now I get that X-Men movies are ensemble hero movies, so you are going to have some amount of story spread around, but that was WAY too much to try to do in a single outing. You need a couple characters that the plot focuses on that have good development and go through changes and the rest of the crew just does the thing you expect and fills out the background. Trying to do too much just leaves every single interaction feeling rushed, unsupported, and deeply unsatisfying.
Directors should bloody well know this. Studios that hand directors hundreds of millions of dollars to make movies should bloody well know this. When there is this much money on the line, how does everyone fail so spectacularly at knowing basic things?
It wasn't just the heroes that were overdone though. Apocalypse himself was a total bore. Powerful villains can be fun even though the best ones are usually not particularly powerful at all, like Joker or Lex Luthor. Unfortunately the movie portrays Apocalypse in ways that are absurd. He can wave his hand and simply cause people's heads to fall off. He can level a city and reform the smashed bits of it into a fantastically complicated, kilometer tall temple in a few seconds. He can teleport, regenerate, empower others, control all technology, and turn other people's powers against them. He can shrug off outrageously powerful physical, psychic, and magical attacks like nothing.
Worst of all though is his powers were unbounded. Each scene the director granted him some new and completely absurd power that he would conveniently forget to use in the next scene. Where were his instant death attacks and city smashing powers when he was in a fight? Why didn't he simply teleport away when things got bad, or cause all of the X-Men's heads to fall off?
Apocalypse also completely lacked any personality or unique features. He wanted to destroy the world for no particular reason. He had no weaknesses, no individuality, nothing to make him remotely interesting or relatable. Apocalypse wanted to destroy the world because he was a villain, and that is what they do, right?
Apocalypse didn't frighten me. He wasn't interesting. It was clear that his powers weren't a problem for the heroes to solve, but rather a plot device that was made up fresh every five minutes.
Speaking of powers that weren't used, the heroes were just as bad. Quicksilver is a hero who can move so quickly he can casually walk around explosions while they are happening. Not just that, but when a massive explosion is wrecking a gigantic mansion he is capable of rescuing 30 people who are all simultaneously a few meters from an advancing wall of flame in various parts of the building.
And yet he forgets to use his ability to save the day to stop the evil soldiers, rescue the lad in distress, or to easily beat up the villains threatening his less powerful friends. He could have defeated the plot of the enemies and pounded them all into submission quite handily. Apocalypse himself was apparently a bit too powerful for Quicksilver to defeat, but any other challenge the heroes found out about was utterly trivial... unless Quicksilver conveniently forgot about his powers, which he did whenever the plot called for it.
The last thing that absolutely drove me nuts about this movie was the way the characters themselves ignored the plot of the movie. Just before the ending Magneto, empowered by Apocalypse, was busy destroying the earth. He was simultaneously smashing every city on the planet to rubble, shattering bridges, knocking down buildings, sinking ships, and launching pieces of metal in random directions across the globe. The mayhem he was causing would have killed millions of people. He finally had a change of heart away from total global annihilation and decided to fight against Apocalypse instead.
Everyone ignored the genocide part. As soon as the fight ended he was buddy buddy with the X-Men again, and everyone was completely chill with the fact that he was the biggest mass murderer in history. MILLIONS dead at his hands, and the other characters just shrug it off without a blink.
Its cool. He's on our team again. Until, you know, he gets in another one of his moods and tries to wipe out humanity a second time.
How can you expect anyone to take your plot seriously when the characters themselves completely ignore it? I get that you want to raise the stakes and use CGI to show us world landmarks being destroyed, but why pay for that CGI if the people in the world pretend that it isn't even happening?
What a travesty.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Put a contract on me
I sometimes read advice columns for entertainment. Partly it is interesting to see how other people would solve problems and what they value but I can't deny that there is an appeal to seeing all the ridiculous situations people get themselves into and thinking "Wow, at least I don't have to deal with *that*."
I just read an advice column about how to cope with the desire for a prenuptial agreement. The person writing in wasn't sure if asking for a prenup made them an awful person - specifically, "dead inside".
That question is funny to me. I think most people get married wanting to have all kinds of magical happy feels and they don't want to accept the possibility of a divorce nor acknowledge all of the monetary issues that might crop up.
But you can't avoid the monetary issues. This is why the government created standard marriage agreements that you enter into when you get married, like it or not. They cover things like how assets are separated after a divorce and how much money people get paid when there is a disparity in income.
You *can't* get married without a contract. You just have a choice of accepting the default, unavoidable contract, or you can custom make your contract to suit the people getting married. Which is more romantic, a boilerplate, government mandated agreement, or something customized just for the two of you?
(Yes, I am trying to sell you on how prenuptial agreements are romantic.)
Most people don't need a prenup, of course. But I think people would be a lot better off if they acted as though a prenup was a normal way of doing things. Sitting down and going over everyone's debt, assets, income, and financial expectations prior to getting hitched is a fantastic idea. We should all have that as our standard model. After looking at all that stuff if you then decide that the standard model for a marriage contract is a good fit for you, great! Maybe it isn't and you should build your own contract, but at least making an informed decision is an excellent idea.
I didn't even consider getting a prenup when I got married, but that was because Wendy and I came in with assets and earning power that were both extremely close to one another, within 20% or so. Normally in a prenup there is one person with a lot more wealth than the other, and in our case that just wasn't so. We actually talked about it before getting married and both of us thought it was funny that we were both perfectly comfortable talking about getting a prenup and yet our personal financial situation made it completely unnecessary because we randomly ended up in such similar financial circumstances.
Plus I was young and in love and absolutely certain that it wouldn't matter anyway because I certainly was going to be with her forever. Which so far has worked out, mind, but one should be realistic.
But all of you out there, you should definitely consider a prenuptial agreement. At least enough to figure out what your entire financial picture looks like, at any rate. Know exactly why you *might* want one before deciding you don't, that is my advice.
I just read an advice column about how to cope with the desire for a prenuptial agreement. The person writing in wasn't sure if asking for a prenup made them an awful person - specifically, "dead inside".
That question is funny to me. I think most people get married wanting to have all kinds of magical happy feels and they don't want to accept the possibility of a divorce nor acknowledge all of the monetary issues that might crop up.
But you can't avoid the monetary issues. This is why the government created standard marriage agreements that you enter into when you get married, like it or not. They cover things like how assets are separated after a divorce and how much money people get paid when there is a disparity in income.
You *can't* get married without a contract. You just have a choice of accepting the default, unavoidable contract, or you can custom make your contract to suit the people getting married. Which is more romantic, a boilerplate, government mandated agreement, or something customized just for the two of you?
(Yes, I am trying to sell you on how prenuptial agreements are romantic.)
Most people don't need a prenup, of course. But I think people would be a lot better off if they acted as though a prenup was a normal way of doing things. Sitting down and going over everyone's debt, assets, income, and financial expectations prior to getting hitched is a fantastic idea. We should all have that as our standard model. After looking at all that stuff if you then decide that the standard model for a marriage contract is a good fit for you, great! Maybe it isn't and you should build your own contract, but at least making an informed decision is an excellent idea.
I didn't even consider getting a prenup when I got married, but that was because Wendy and I came in with assets and earning power that were both extremely close to one another, within 20% or so. Normally in a prenup there is one person with a lot more wealth than the other, and in our case that just wasn't so. We actually talked about it before getting married and both of us thought it was funny that we were both perfectly comfortable talking about getting a prenup and yet our personal financial situation made it completely unnecessary because we randomly ended up in such similar financial circumstances.
Plus I was young and in love and absolutely certain that it wouldn't matter anyway because I certainly was going to be with her forever. Which so far has worked out, mind, but one should be realistic.
But all of you out there, you should definitely consider a prenuptial agreement. At least enough to figure out what your entire financial picture looks like, at any rate. Know exactly why you *might* want one before deciding you don't, that is my advice.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
The best of the worst
I have seen some interesting posts out there trying to convince me to to give money to the Conservative party. That isn't surprising in itself, the interesting part is that the people trying to convince me are lefties who support the NDP or Liberals.
The idea behind this push is that there is one person in the Conservative leadership race who is distinctly more progressive than the rest. His name is Michael Chong, and after looking at his record and statements I agree with that assessment. He isn't a raving Trump-lite lunatic like O'Leary or Leitch, he actively pushes back against Islamophobia, and in general most of his positions are a lot more moderate than the rest of the Conservative crop. From what I have seen I would rate him as by far the best Conservative candidate among those that have any chance of being nominated. Don't mistake that for glowing praise; the Conservative candidates make me cringe.
The downside to the push is this: I would have to pay $15 for Conservative party membership in order to vote for Chong for leader. While I would have to hold my nose to go vote in a Conservative nomination I might be willing to do that to try to prevent one of the extremists being in charge, but I can't justify doing so when I would have to give money to a party that stands firmly against all of my values.
Looking at this from a strategic standpoint I can't really say what I want to happen. I thought it was good that Trump won the Republican nomination because I was pretty sure he would say a bunch of idiotic things and get crushed in the debates by either Sanders or Clinton. I figured giving Trump the win was a sure way to get a Democratic victory.
We all know how that turned out. I was dead wrong, like a lot of other people.
So while there is a temptation to wish that O'Leary wins and goes on to alienate all of the moderates to keep the Conservatives out of power, for all I know he could end up running the show in Canada and doing his best to create some kind of theocratic dystopia.
Chong at least would just do the usual Conservative thing of trying to slash taxes for the rich and tell the poor that they should just work harder, with a side order of wishing he could realistically push through 'traditional marriage' and 'bathroom safety' bills. He wouldn't be a flaming dumpster fire that threatens to engulf the world like Trump, he would just be a kind of slow death, a fetid rot, sort of like Harper was when he was in charge.
Even if I liked Chong (which I don't) I wouldn't give money to the Conservatives in a vain attempt to put him in the seat of power. He is the best of the worst, sure, but I am going to save my time, money, and energy to push for someone I actually want governing, not a backstop against even greater disaster.
I am so bitter at the Liberals for their election reform lie that I am left hoping that the NDP can serve me up someone to believe in for this next election. Not that my vote matters in the slightest, mind you, since my riding is an absolute lock for the Liberals and has been for many years.
The idea behind this push is that there is one person in the Conservative leadership race who is distinctly more progressive than the rest. His name is Michael Chong, and after looking at his record and statements I agree with that assessment. He isn't a raving Trump-lite lunatic like O'Leary or Leitch, he actively pushes back against Islamophobia, and in general most of his positions are a lot more moderate than the rest of the Conservative crop. From what I have seen I would rate him as by far the best Conservative candidate among those that have any chance of being nominated. Don't mistake that for glowing praise; the Conservative candidates make me cringe.
The downside to the push is this: I would have to pay $15 for Conservative party membership in order to vote for Chong for leader. While I would have to hold my nose to go vote in a Conservative nomination I might be willing to do that to try to prevent one of the extremists being in charge, but I can't justify doing so when I would have to give money to a party that stands firmly against all of my values.
Looking at this from a strategic standpoint I can't really say what I want to happen. I thought it was good that Trump won the Republican nomination because I was pretty sure he would say a bunch of idiotic things and get crushed in the debates by either Sanders or Clinton. I figured giving Trump the win was a sure way to get a Democratic victory.
We all know how that turned out. I was dead wrong, like a lot of other people.
So while there is a temptation to wish that O'Leary wins and goes on to alienate all of the moderates to keep the Conservatives out of power, for all I know he could end up running the show in Canada and doing his best to create some kind of theocratic dystopia.
Chong at least would just do the usual Conservative thing of trying to slash taxes for the rich and tell the poor that they should just work harder, with a side order of wishing he could realistically push through 'traditional marriage' and 'bathroom safety' bills. He wouldn't be a flaming dumpster fire that threatens to engulf the world like Trump, he would just be a kind of slow death, a fetid rot, sort of like Harper was when he was in charge.
Even if I liked Chong (which I don't) I wouldn't give money to the Conservatives in a vain attempt to put him in the seat of power. He is the best of the worst, sure, but I am going to save my time, money, and energy to push for someone I actually want governing, not a backstop against even greater disaster.
I am so bitter at the Liberals for their election reform lie that I am left hoping that the NDP can serve me up someone to believe in for this next election. Not that my vote matters in the slightest, mind you, since my riding is an absolute lock for the Liberals and has been for many years.
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Choose your friends wisely
My brother linked me a parenting article this weekend that talked about how parents should choose their daughter's friends. The quote below the title is this:
We “helicopter” over our kids’ wardrobes, nutrition, sleep schedules, hygiene, science fair projects and then pride ourselves on how “hands off” we are on social issues.
When I read that statement my reaction is to think 'wow, these people really ought to stop helicoptering so damn much and just let the kid be'. The author's conclusion was that parents should micromanage and meddle even more, carefully making sure their daughters circle of friends is firmly under the control of the parents.
To be fair, this article is posted on faithit.com, and from a brief glance at the writing there it is a safe bet I would be happy to set all of their articles on fire for one reason or another. However, I don't think this is just an issue of religion, but rather one of feminist principle.
In the article the mother in question decided that her daughter absolutely had to be friends with a new girl in her class and forced her to start that process. The story concludes with the two girls being good friends for years, which is fine and all, but I really worry about what message this sort of thing sends in the long run.
Women are socialized to be accommodating and nice. They are expected to be the ones that smooth over social situations, putting their own desires after that of others. There is already too much pressure put on women to let men get away with all kinds of crap and I really wouldn't want to contribute to that pressure. When we say to a young girl that she must accept someone into her social circle, give them time and energy, listen to their story, and place their needs above her own, we condition that young girl to do the same in adulthood.
When these young girls grow up they are going to be subject to harassment from men who feel entitled to their attention, time, energy, or bodies. Sometimes it is going to be catcalling, sometimes it will be sexual harassment at work, and sometimes it will be crappy behaviour at social events. The message I want my daughter to have internalized is that she should be decent to people, but that she does not owe them friendship, love, relationships, service, or intimacy. When walking down the street you have an obligation to not randomly punch people, but you do not have any obligation to sit down and have a chat with them either.
People do not have the right to demand your friendship. It is all well and good to be pleasant to people at first, and to avoid being cruel to those who do not have a support network, but in the end you get to decide who your friends are. Teaching children that others will decide who they associate with and that they should not expect to be able to set their own boundaries is a recipe for disaster in later life, both in friendships and in romantic relationships.
There is a crucial difference between encouragement and forcing. When I have heard about other children who are struggling to find friends in school and I thought Pinkie Pie might enjoy their company I have encouraged her to talk to them. If they are lonely then both children might really benefit from spending time together. But I won't make her to do it. I will give her the information, a bit of encouragement, and the freedom to choose. Figuring out who to be friends with is tricky, but it is a thing everyone needs to learn, and you don't learn much with someone else making all of the decisions for you.
We “helicopter” over our kids’ wardrobes, nutrition, sleep schedules, hygiene, science fair projects and then pride ourselves on how “hands off” we are on social issues.
When I read that statement my reaction is to think 'wow, these people really ought to stop helicoptering so damn much and just let the kid be'. The author's conclusion was that parents should micromanage and meddle even more, carefully making sure their daughters circle of friends is firmly under the control of the parents.
To be fair, this article is posted on faithit.com, and from a brief glance at the writing there it is a safe bet I would be happy to set all of their articles on fire for one reason or another. However, I don't think this is just an issue of religion, but rather one of feminist principle.
In the article the mother in question decided that her daughter absolutely had to be friends with a new girl in her class and forced her to start that process. The story concludes with the two girls being good friends for years, which is fine and all, but I really worry about what message this sort of thing sends in the long run.
Women are socialized to be accommodating and nice. They are expected to be the ones that smooth over social situations, putting their own desires after that of others. There is already too much pressure put on women to let men get away with all kinds of crap and I really wouldn't want to contribute to that pressure. When we say to a young girl that she must accept someone into her social circle, give them time and energy, listen to their story, and place their needs above her own, we condition that young girl to do the same in adulthood.
When these young girls grow up they are going to be subject to harassment from men who feel entitled to their attention, time, energy, or bodies. Sometimes it is going to be catcalling, sometimes it will be sexual harassment at work, and sometimes it will be crappy behaviour at social events. The message I want my daughter to have internalized is that she should be decent to people, but that she does not owe them friendship, love, relationships, service, or intimacy. When walking down the street you have an obligation to not randomly punch people, but you do not have any obligation to sit down and have a chat with them either.
People do not have the right to demand your friendship. It is all well and good to be pleasant to people at first, and to avoid being cruel to those who do not have a support network, but in the end you get to decide who your friends are. Teaching children that others will decide who they associate with and that they should not expect to be able to set their own boundaries is a recipe for disaster in later life, both in friendships and in romantic relationships.
There is a crucial difference between encouragement and forcing. When I have heard about other children who are struggling to find friends in school and I thought Pinkie Pie might enjoy their company I have encouraged her to talk to them. If they are lonely then both children might really benefit from spending time together. But I won't make her to do it. I will give her the information, a bit of encouragement, and the freedom to choose. Figuring out who to be friends with is tricky, but it is a thing everyone needs to learn, and you don't learn much with someone else making all of the decisions for you.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
I don't want to
Sometimes I have weird conversations with people about what I want. I have this way of looking at my own desires that most people find totally bizarre and yet it seems so natural to me. For example, awhile ago I was talking to someone about rock climbing. They were trying to convince me that rock climbing walls in Toronto were great and I should go to one of those places regularly. They sound great and all, I said, but evidently I don't want to go to one.
But rock climbing walls are so great, they insisted. There are so many reasons to go!
I wasn't saying that I had good reasons not to go, just that I know about rock climbing. It sounds interesting. In the past I have enjoyed climbing walls. But I don't go to them, despite this knowledge and experience, so all the evidence says that I don't want to go climbing.
To me this just makes sense. I could go climbing, it isn't like we are talking about visiting the moon or yachting, both of which require resources I don't possess. I just don't do it so my conclusion is that I don't want to do it. Not for any good reason, mind you, but facts don't necessarily require good reasons.
I want to go to the gym and lift weights. I can tell because I end up doing that. I want to play video games and slay internet monsters. I can tell because I do that. I don't want to go climbing, because I don't do that.
To me it makes all kinds of sense to put evidence above subjective feelings. I experience the feeling of wanting to go climbing, so in that sense I want to, but I don't do it, so I conclude that I don't actually want to. I just experience a feeling of happiness associated with it. I suppose that temporary feeling is weak, or short lived, and it isn't enough to convince me to schedule it into my day.
Normal people don't think like this. They look at me like I have lost my mind when I talk this way. They measure their wants based on their temporary feelings rather than on the evidence of what they have done in the past. I get that this is the way most people operate, but it seems so foreign to me. Shouldn't you use science to figure things out, even things like "how do you feel?"
I guess the answer is no, for the populace at large.
This is one of those ways in which I try to fit in when other people talk. Most of the time I know that speaking like this will confuse, anger, or frighten the person I am talking to so I just pretend that I am a regular person and respond in ways that they expect. I put on my person face and say things that make no sense to get through social interactions. I suppose I am lucky that I can figure out what to say when I want everything to be smooth, even if I often choose not to say it.
I wonder which of the people that read this will nod their heads and say "yup, that makes sense!" I suspect Sthenno will, but as for everyone else... I just don't know.
But rock climbing walls are so great, they insisted. There are so many reasons to go!
I wasn't saying that I had good reasons not to go, just that I know about rock climbing. It sounds interesting. In the past I have enjoyed climbing walls. But I don't go to them, despite this knowledge and experience, so all the evidence says that I don't want to go climbing.
To me this just makes sense. I could go climbing, it isn't like we are talking about visiting the moon or yachting, both of which require resources I don't possess. I just don't do it so my conclusion is that I don't want to do it. Not for any good reason, mind you, but facts don't necessarily require good reasons.
I want to go to the gym and lift weights. I can tell because I end up doing that. I want to play video games and slay internet monsters. I can tell because I do that. I don't want to go climbing, because I don't do that.
To me it makes all kinds of sense to put evidence above subjective feelings. I experience the feeling of wanting to go climbing, so in that sense I want to, but I don't do it, so I conclude that I don't actually want to. I just experience a feeling of happiness associated with it. I suppose that temporary feeling is weak, or short lived, and it isn't enough to convince me to schedule it into my day.
Normal people don't think like this. They look at me like I have lost my mind when I talk this way. They measure their wants based on their temporary feelings rather than on the evidence of what they have done in the past. I get that this is the way most people operate, but it seems so foreign to me. Shouldn't you use science to figure things out, even things like "how do you feel?"
I guess the answer is no, for the populace at large.
This is one of those ways in which I try to fit in when other people talk. Most of the time I know that speaking like this will confuse, anger, or frighten the person I am talking to so I just pretend that I am a regular person and respond in ways that they expect. I put on my person face and say things that make no sense to get through social interactions. I suppose I am lucky that I can figure out what to say when I want everything to be smooth, even if I often choose not to say it.
I wonder which of the people that read this will nod their heads and say "yup, that makes sense!" I suspect Sthenno will, but as for everyone else... I just don't know.
Monday, March 6, 2017
Just friends
Last weekend I was at a party where the subject of polyamory was discussed in some detail and at great length. As often happens it took the form of me standing there answering a seemingly endless series of questions from a crowd of monogamous people. In this particular case The Flautist was with me and that changes the tone of the questions substantially. When it is just me there is usually an overtone of disbelief, mostly from the straight men in the crowd who don't quite believe that my life can be what I claim it is.
Most of the questions I get are some form of the questioner being sure polyamory must be dysfunctional and/or evil, and they try to catch me up in some manner. This past weekend there was one person insisting that polyamory must not work because people need someone who will stay with them their entire lives and be willing to change their diapers when they are old or sick. I find that sort of thing kind of hilarious because it is so obviously an attack of desperation. People don't refuse friends because those friends aren't going to wipe their asses when they are 95. I don't meet someone at a board gaming event and say "Wait, random board gamer #5. You won't come visit me in the nursing home in fifty years. Fuck you, I don't need you in my life!" And yet somehow this is necessary for somebody I am going to go on a date with?
I don't always know how to approach that sort of question when it comes with a slick of vitriol. For many people I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and answer their questions straight up, generally with the phrase "Just substitute 'close friend' for 'person I am dating' in your question and the answer will be obvious." At some point though I really want to just stop them and demand to know what about polyamory has them feeling so defensive and desperate to justify their life choices. It isn't actually that hard to tell the difference between someone who is curious about something outside their realm of experience and someone on a mission to discover my deep dark secret and reveal it to the world.
I wonder how I should decide when to switch from patient explainer to telling people to take their passive aggressive shit and stuff it. For someone who genuinely wants to understand and has an open mind I have a nearly endless patience to explain. Trick is, if I go all nuclear on someone who is being a jerk to me people then I get written off as the irrational, angry man who must then clearly be wrong.
My life is a privileged one, that I only have to deal with that particular bind in one way, and that I didn't have to deal with it until middle age.
The other really weird sort of thing that happens in this sort of situation is a hero worship sort of thing. With me wearing a wedding ring standing there holding hands with the Flautist while we both sport a 'just fell in love ' stupid grin it is easy to see why other people would want a piece of what we have. Usually it is the straight men who look at me like I am some sort of wizard who has broken the rules of the cosmos. You would think bangin' people and falling in love by accident were equivalent to tossing fireballs out of my fingertips and flying. They often act as though it is an impossibility for any mortal human to do these things, as if perhaps I was The Chosen One and born with some astounding power.
Hell, wouldn't it be a great super power to be filled with love all the time? Better in the long run than being super strong or having invisibility or some other thing people usually wish for.
If I do have a super power it is the ability to not give a fuck. I was not born with it, that is for sure! My garden where I grow the fucks I might give was incredibly fecund when I was young and it took years of pouring poison on it to keep the fucks from growing back.
I want to get across that treating polyamory like magic is in fact the barrier. When you just look at it as a choice with benefits and costs, smiles and sorrows, a thing anyone could do, suddenly it becomes possible. These folks often say that polyamory sounds great and they would love to do it but their partner / parents / neighbours / extended family / coworkers / etc would disapprove so it is impossible. It isn't an impossibility, just a cost, but they have been trained to see that cost as infinite, rendering all possible decisions incurring that cost as moot.
I get that for many people that cost is too high. Fair enough. But it is important to see it as a cost, a finite number, a thing that can be reckoned with. How your reckoning ends up isn't a thing to me either way but thinking that you can do this whole polyamory thing if you want but after thoughtful consideration you chose not - all good! Just consider, is all I ask.
And while you consider, I am going to go make a sign that says "replace 'girlfriend' with 'close friend' in your sentence and ask again" so I can flash it to people at parties to reduce my workload some.
Most of the questions I get are some form of the questioner being sure polyamory must be dysfunctional and/or evil, and they try to catch me up in some manner. This past weekend there was one person insisting that polyamory must not work because people need someone who will stay with them their entire lives and be willing to change their diapers when they are old or sick. I find that sort of thing kind of hilarious because it is so obviously an attack of desperation. People don't refuse friends because those friends aren't going to wipe their asses when they are 95. I don't meet someone at a board gaming event and say "Wait, random board gamer #5. You won't come visit me in the nursing home in fifty years. Fuck you, I don't need you in my life!" And yet somehow this is necessary for somebody I am going to go on a date with?
I don't always know how to approach that sort of question when it comes with a slick of vitriol. For many people I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and answer their questions straight up, generally with the phrase "Just substitute 'close friend' for 'person I am dating' in your question and the answer will be obvious." At some point though I really want to just stop them and demand to know what about polyamory has them feeling so defensive and desperate to justify their life choices. It isn't actually that hard to tell the difference between someone who is curious about something outside their realm of experience and someone on a mission to discover my deep dark secret and reveal it to the world.
I wonder how I should decide when to switch from patient explainer to telling people to take their passive aggressive shit and stuff it. For someone who genuinely wants to understand and has an open mind I have a nearly endless patience to explain. Trick is, if I go all nuclear on someone who is being a jerk to me people then I get written off as the irrational, angry man who must then clearly be wrong.
My life is a privileged one, that I only have to deal with that particular bind in one way, and that I didn't have to deal with it until middle age.
The other really weird sort of thing that happens in this sort of situation is a hero worship sort of thing. With me wearing a wedding ring standing there holding hands with the Flautist while we both sport a 'just fell in love ' stupid grin it is easy to see why other people would want a piece of what we have. Usually it is the straight men who look at me like I am some sort of wizard who has broken the rules of the cosmos. You would think bangin' people and falling in love by accident were equivalent to tossing fireballs out of my fingertips and flying. They often act as though it is an impossibility for any mortal human to do these things, as if perhaps I was The Chosen One and born with some astounding power.
Hell, wouldn't it be a great super power to be filled with love all the time? Better in the long run than being super strong or having invisibility or some other thing people usually wish for.
If I do have a super power it is the ability to not give a fuck. I was not born with it, that is for sure! My garden where I grow the fucks I might give was incredibly fecund when I was young and it took years of pouring poison on it to keep the fucks from growing back.
I want to get across that treating polyamory like magic is in fact the barrier. When you just look at it as a choice with benefits and costs, smiles and sorrows, a thing anyone could do, suddenly it becomes possible. These folks often say that polyamory sounds great and they would love to do it but their partner / parents / neighbours / extended family / coworkers / etc would disapprove so it is impossible. It isn't an impossibility, just a cost, but they have been trained to see that cost as infinite, rendering all possible decisions incurring that cost as moot.
I get that for many people that cost is too high. Fair enough. But it is important to see it as a cost, a finite number, a thing that can be reckoned with. How your reckoning ends up isn't a thing to me either way but thinking that you can do this whole polyamory thing if you want but after thoughtful consideration you chose not - all good! Just consider, is all I ask.
And while you consider, I am going to go make a sign that says "replace 'girlfriend' with 'close friend' in your sentence and ask again" so I can flash it to people at parties to reduce my workload some.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Book burning
A Danish man is being charged under Denmark's blasphemy laws for burning a Quran and posting a video of doing so on the internet.
This is the sort of headline that gets my attention immediately. It drives me nuts that someone could be prosecuted for the crime of not believing in someone else's fairy tale, but that is what is happening here. Blasphemy laws are a disaster wherever they are found, in spite of the fact that what they do is make it so that if a bunch of people believe something ridiculous they can get the state to attack anyone who dares voice disbelief of the ridiculous belief. It doesn't apply if beliefs are reasonable or provable, because that isn't religion. Perfectly fine to insist that climate change is a myth, because we can prove that using science. Insult the idea that a person walked on water and rose from the dead? A crime!
Of course one must consider that the man in question will not do any jail time even if he gets convicted. He will only be fined, in what I assume is the courts trying to placate the religious nuts without actually wanting to do something serious.
Perhaps I ought to be focusing instead on more serious events like war, or famine, or whatever it is that Trump did today. You know, things that result in thousands of deaths and massive upheaval.
I don't though. Trump said another disastrous thing, war still exists, people are dying. But blasphemy laws in a progressive western state being enforced? That is interesting, not least because it could very well be me getting dragged into court next time.
I suppose this makes it rather selfish of me to focus on this sort of news since it is insignificant compared to many other things I could talk leap upon.
However, I do think it is a good thing to keep in mind that we ought not to accept small erosions of our basic liberties in stride. The freedom of expression of religion is important. That includes the right to not be religious, and in fact to do the opposite of what other religions want. When the state decides to recognize some religions and not others and is willing to prosecute people for following the wrong one we step ever closer to a theocracy, and that is an awful place for anyone who doesn't happen to be following the chosen religion.
People need to be free to talk about how their book is the literal word of the creator of the universe and post that message online. Also people need to be free to set books on fire and post that online. The state should have no concern about either, except insofar as people obey the laws about fire, of course.
This is the sort of headline that gets my attention immediately. It drives me nuts that someone could be prosecuted for the crime of not believing in someone else's fairy tale, but that is what is happening here. Blasphemy laws are a disaster wherever they are found, in spite of the fact that what they do is make it so that if a bunch of people believe something ridiculous they can get the state to attack anyone who dares voice disbelief of the ridiculous belief. It doesn't apply if beliefs are reasonable or provable, because that isn't religion. Perfectly fine to insist that climate change is a myth, because we can prove that using science. Insult the idea that a person walked on water and rose from the dead? A crime!
Of course one must consider that the man in question will not do any jail time even if he gets convicted. He will only be fined, in what I assume is the courts trying to placate the religious nuts without actually wanting to do something serious.
Perhaps I ought to be focusing instead on more serious events like war, or famine, or whatever it is that Trump did today. You know, things that result in thousands of deaths and massive upheaval.
I don't though. Trump said another disastrous thing, war still exists, people are dying. But blasphemy laws in a progressive western state being enforced? That is interesting, not least because it could very well be me getting dragged into court next time.
I suppose this makes it rather selfish of me to focus on this sort of news since it is insignificant compared to many other things I could talk leap upon.
However, I do think it is a good thing to keep in mind that we ought not to accept small erosions of our basic liberties in stride. The freedom of expression of religion is important. That includes the right to not be religious, and in fact to do the opposite of what other religions want. When the state decides to recognize some religions and not others and is willing to prosecute people for following the wrong one we step ever closer to a theocracy, and that is an awful place for anyone who doesn't happen to be following the chosen religion.
People need to be free to talk about how their book is the literal word of the creator of the universe and post that message online. Also people need to be free to set books on fire and post that online. The state should have no concern about either, except insofar as people obey the laws about fire, of course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)