On one of the social networking sites where I hang out, they've introduced a "report abuse" feature for comments on posts. Yesterday I saw a post by someone trying to be helpful and to explain this new feature to others, saying they should report it if they see "naughty" comments, and later, when asked about what he had meant by that, he said he had used the word "naughty" to refer to "anything that a person would not like to see in a comment."
I'm seriously hoping he didn't really mean that. Taken literally, I could report his comment on that basis: I really would not like to see people suggesting that people should report others for saying things simply on the grounds that it's something they'd rather not see.
But this got me thinking: what would it be ok to report people for?
It's very easy to say: report comments which are racist, sexist, hateful. It's easy to say that, because this is what western culture currently says is unacceptable. Just as there were times when racism was the social norm, but blaspheming against God could get you burned at the stake. (Which seems to me a blasphemy against God, but that's another story.)
It's also very easy for me to say this because I'm a woman and I'm Jewish, so racism and sexism are serious issues for me personally.
But here's the problem: I want the freedom to express myself, to say what I think without someone forcing me to shut up. And this means I have to give that freedom also to those who would say things that offend me.
Sure, there are things I hear (or read) which offend me and personally I'd rather people didn't say. Like I said, I'm a woman and I'm Jewish, so I get offended by some stuff that objectifies women and I get offended by negative stereotyping of Jews; I'm an Israeli, so I get offended by some of the stuff I hear said about my country; I'm a follower of Jesus, so I get offended by anti-God stuff and by... hang on a minute, this is where it gets kind of interesting...
You see, as a follower of Jesus I get offended not just by vile things people say about Jesus or about his followers - as a follower of Jesus I get offended by unloving attitudes that people show towards one another, and I get particularly angry when these attitudes come from people who claim to be Christians. When I hear people spewing hatred towards a group of people and claiming to do so in the name of God, to me this is blasphemy.
But back to what I was saying before: there are things which offend me and personally I'd rather people didn't say them. But there's a major difference between saying "personally I'd rather you didn't" and saying "thou shalt not". You see, there are things I say that offend other people, and just as I don't want someone to force me to shut up, I don't want to force others to shut up either.
Some of those who read my posts over there may at this point say: so why did you yell so loudly about those boob pictures? and I will say again: there's a major difference between saying "personally I'd rather you didn't" and saying "thou shalt not" - I won't tell you not to, but just as you have the right to post things that offend me, I have the right to point out that they do offend me. And, once you know I'm offended, you might or might not change your behaviour as a result - it's up to you: there is no automatic "someone is offended by X, therefore I mustn't say X" - human discourse is such that as soon as we open our mouths we may offend someone somewhere, and we won't get very far with debate if causing offence would automatically make us shut up. I blog about my faith knowing that what I say is offensive to lots of people - being a Jewish believer in Jesus is something that some would prefer to sweep under the carpet and pretend there's no such thing. And saying that I believe Jesus is the only way to God - that is obviously offensive to people who believe in other ways. But this is what I strongly believe, and it's important to me to talk about it openly.
So, just as I value the freedom to say things that are offensive to others, I will fight for the right of others to say things that are offensive to me.
p.s. I do, however, reserve the right to moderate comments on my own posts - my focus here was on what people say on their own or on other people's posts (or what they say offline). Still, I don't often remove comments, it's not a decision I take lightly, and certainly not just on the grounds of the content being offensive to me personally.
23 Sept 2011
12 Sept 2011
Like-minded people? There's no such thing.
I've been exploring a new social networking site and getting to know new people. It's great fun. One day I stumbled upon a thread where, in the context of this SN site still being invitation-only, someone wondered if maybe it would be nicer if it stayed that way, so that he could keep interacting with like-minded people.
Like-minded people? Really? Is there such a thing?
It must be weeks since I saw that comment, but it has stayed on my mind. It has haunted me as I've been getting to know more people, people who are fun and interesting and inspiring and yes, we have some things in common but in other areas we are miles apart, and that's cool - that's part of the joy of human interaction, getting to hear different points of view, getting insights into how other people see things, getting to know someone who is - gasp! - of a different culture, different faith group, different political persuasion, different mentality... getting to know people with different preferences, people whose favourite colour is green when I really like pink, people who love eating stuff that I can't stand, people who are into different hobbies, different genres of literature, different tv programmes... Like-minded? yes, no, maybe... you normally start from something you have in common, yes, but then as you get to know a person you discover other aspects, you discover the differences, and if you're both grown-up about it, you can build friendships with people without having to pretend you agree about everything.
The thing is, there is no chance that I will ever find another human being on this earth who will agree with me about everything. I can find people who are like-minded in one sense or other, for example when I go to church I meet with people who share my faith so we are like-minded in one aspect, but that doesn't mean we can't find stuff that we see differently. People join all sorts of groups where they meet with people who share their political view or their love for a hobby or whatever, and if they keep to that subject they might be able to remain under the illusion that they are in the company of like-minded people, but once you scratch the surface you will find that there is no such thing as two thinking people who are of the same mind about everything. And whilst the like-mindedness may be the starting point, whilst it might be what draws you to start talking to someone, it's actually the differences that make it interesting to carry on. If all the other person ever said was "oh yes, me too" it would get boring.
There is sometimes a comfort in talking to people who you know agree with you about something in particular, when you're weary from debates it's quite nice to be able to retreat into a little huddle with a few friends and sigh together about those out there who "don't get it"... but living life like that all the time would be so vanilla... and anyway, it's impossible unless you switch your brain off and find others who have done the same.
Like-minded people? Really? Is there such a thing?
It must be weeks since I saw that comment, but it has stayed on my mind. It has haunted me as I've been getting to know more people, people who are fun and interesting and inspiring and yes, we have some things in common but in other areas we are miles apart, and that's cool - that's part of the joy of human interaction, getting to hear different points of view, getting insights into how other people see things, getting to know someone who is - gasp! - of a different culture, different faith group, different political persuasion, different mentality... getting to know people with different preferences, people whose favourite colour is green when I really like pink, people who love eating stuff that I can't stand, people who are into different hobbies, different genres of literature, different tv programmes... Like-minded? yes, no, maybe... you normally start from something you have in common, yes, but then as you get to know a person you discover other aspects, you discover the differences, and if you're both grown-up about it, you can build friendships with people without having to pretend you agree about everything.
The thing is, there is no chance that I will ever find another human being on this earth who will agree with me about everything. I can find people who are like-minded in one sense or other, for example when I go to church I meet with people who share my faith so we are like-minded in one aspect, but that doesn't mean we can't find stuff that we see differently. People join all sorts of groups where they meet with people who share their political view or their love for a hobby or whatever, and if they keep to that subject they might be able to remain under the illusion that they are in the company of like-minded people, but once you scratch the surface you will find that there is no such thing as two thinking people who are of the same mind about everything. And whilst the like-mindedness may be the starting point, whilst it might be what draws you to start talking to someone, it's actually the differences that make it interesting to carry on. If all the other person ever said was "oh yes, me too" it would get boring.
There is sometimes a comfort in talking to people who you know agree with you about something in particular, when you're weary from debates it's quite nice to be able to retreat into a little huddle with a few friends and sigh together about those out there who "don't get it"... but living life like that all the time would be so vanilla... and anyway, it's impossible unless you switch your brain off and find others who have done the same.
The problem of justice
Do we want justice? or do we want justice only when it suits us?
When we hear on the news about some serial murderer or child abuser or rapist who butchered his victims, the natural feeling is a desire for justice to be done, for the person who did these evil things to be punished. There is public outrage when it looks like someone who has committed terrible crimes is being let off lightly. We want to see these people pay for what they've done, and we like to feel that the punishment fits the crime, we like to feel that the payment is at an appropriate level.
We have a desire for justice to be done. When we see someone weak being oppressed by someone stronger, we react with moral outrage - whether it's physical or verbal abuse, whether it's big corporations maltreating the poor, wealthy countries treating third world countries unfairly, etc etc etc - we see some kind of behaviour that seems to us unjust, and we get angry.
So, how do you think God feels? He made this world, he made us in his image - which means we have a capacity to love, to show compassion and kindness - but so often we choose a different way, so often we go with our selfish desires and simply don't care how many people we have to tread on in order to get what we want. We look at murderers and rapists and child abusers and see the evil in them, but how often do we look in the mirror and see the evil in ourselves? There was a sad joke I saw recently on Facebook, which said: "Please copy and post this as your status even if just for a few minutes, if you know someone who is alive today because you can't afford a hitman...." The truth is, though most of us do not actually kill people, we do have this attitude within us, we do have those times or situations of really really hating someone and wishing them ill, people who get on our nerves so badly that we wish we could press a button and make them disappear, people who are in our way and we feel our lives could be so much better if only they weren't there, people we hate so much that we actually want to see them suffer - the truth is we are not perfect and wonderful and loving and compassionate people, not all the time. We have both sides - they say Hitler was kind to animals and to children. We like to pigeon-hole people like Hitler and serial murderers and so on into some kind of "evil people" category, distancing ourselves from them as though we are totally different, but if we look at our inner thoughts and feelings, we'll see a much darker picture than we're comfortable with.
God sees that darker picture within us - he knows each of us inside out, he knows our most intimate thoughts and feelings, even the stuff we don't admit to ourselves. And he sees all our evil and selfish behaviour - not just the big things.
Justice - do we really want it? Do we want everyone to pay for the bad things they've done? Everyone - including ourselves?
The Bible says that a day will come when God will judge us - everyone, each and every human being who has ever lived is going to stand in front of God's throne. What will you plead when you stand before him? You are - like each and every human being who has ever lived, apart from Jesus - guilty. You may be guilty of lesser sins than Hitler, but have you led a perfect life, never hurting anyone? If you are human and if you look at your life honestly, you will realise that you are not perfect and that, like the rest of us, you are guilty.
There are two issues to be decided in a courtroom: first there is the question of whether or not the defendant is guilty. Once guilt has been established, there is the issue of sentencing: what will the punishment be?
When the day comes and we all stand before God to be judged, we will be able to do nothing other than plead guilty. But when it comes to sentencing and punishment, there will be two groups: people who will suffer for what they've done, and people who go free despite what they've done.
The difference depends on what you decide now, whilst you're still alive on this earth. The choice is simple: there is someone who has already suffered the punishment for everyone, and it's up to you personally to accept his sacrifice for you. Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice for the whole of humankind, once and for all, and those who believe in him will be able to stand before God's throne on that day and say: yes, I'm guilty, but Jesus' blood was shed to cover my sins.
I made that choice in July 2002, which means if I get hit by a bus tomorrow I know I'm safe. How about you? Have you made that choice yet? God's mercy is available, through Jesus, for everyone - but it's up to you to accept his offer.
When we hear on the news about some serial murderer or child abuser or rapist who butchered his victims, the natural feeling is a desire for justice to be done, for the person who did these evil things to be punished. There is public outrage when it looks like someone who has committed terrible crimes is being let off lightly. We want to see these people pay for what they've done, and we like to feel that the punishment fits the crime, we like to feel that the payment is at an appropriate level.
We have a desire for justice to be done. When we see someone weak being oppressed by someone stronger, we react with moral outrage - whether it's physical or verbal abuse, whether it's big corporations maltreating the poor, wealthy countries treating third world countries unfairly, etc etc etc - we see some kind of behaviour that seems to us unjust, and we get angry.
So, how do you think God feels? He made this world, he made us in his image - which means we have a capacity to love, to show compassion and kindness - but so often we choose a different way, so often we go with our selfish desires and simply don't care how many people we have to tread on in order to get what we want. We look at murderers and rapists and child abusers and see the evil in them, but how often do we look in the mirror and see the evil in ourselves? There was a sad joke I saw recently on Facebook, which said: "Please copy and post this as your status even if just for a few minutes, if you know someone who is alive today because you can't afford a hitman...." The truth is, though most of us do not actually kill people, we do have this attitude within us, we do have those times or situations of really really hating someone and wishing them ill, people who get on our nerves so badly that we wish we could press a button and make them disappear, people who are in our way and we feel our lives could be so much better if only they weren't there, people we hate so much that we actually want to see them suffer - the truth is we are not perfect and wonderful and loving and compassionate people, not all the time. We have both sides - they say Hitler was kind to animals and to children. We like to pigeon-hole people like Hitler and serial murderers and so on into some kind of "evil people" category, distancing ourselves from them as though we are totally different, but if we look at our inner thoughts and feelings, we'll see a much darker picture than we're comfortable with.
God sees that darker picture within us - he knows each of us inside out, he knows our most intimate thoughts and feelings, even the stuff we don't admit to ourselves. And he sees all our evil and selfish behaviour - not just the big things.
Justice - do we really want it? Do we want everyone to pay for the bad things they've done? Everyone - including ourselves?
The Bible says that a day will come when God will judge us - everyone, each and every human being who has ever lived is going to stand in front of God's throne. What will you plead when you stand before him? You are - like each and every human being who has ever lived, apart from Jesus - guilty. You may be guilty of lesser sins than Hitler, but have you led a perfect life, never hurting anyone? If you are human and if you look at your life honestly, you will realise that you are not perfect and that, like the rest of us, you are guilty.
There are two issues to be decided in a courtroom: first there is the question of whether or not the defendant is guilty. Once guilt has been established, there is the issue of sentencing: what will the punishment be?
When the day comes and we all stand before God to be judged, we will be able to do nothing other than plead guilty. But when it comes to sentencing and punishment, there will be two groups: people who will suffer for what they've done, and people who go free despite what they've done.
The difference depends on what you decide now, whilst you're still alive on this earth. The choice is simple: there is someone who has already suffered the punishment for everyone, and it's up to you personally to accept his sacrifice for you. Jesus died as an atoning sacrifice for the whole of humankind, once and for all, and those who believe in him will be able to stand before God's throne on that day and say: yes, I'm guilty, but Jesus' blood was shed to cover my sins.
I made that choice in July 2002, which means if I get hit by a bus tomorrow I know I'm safe. How about you? Have you made that choice yet? God's mercy is available, through Jesus, for everyone - but it's up to you to accept his offer.
11 Jul 2011
A small grumble... about buying smalls
Went into M&S lingerie department the other day, chose something and looked around for somewhere to pay. nada. nowhere to be seen. had to wander out of the lingerie area into the next department, which turned out to be menswear. Why do I have to wander into the menswear area carrying personal women's stuff? it wasn't even in a box - totally exposed. I felt so embarrassed I came close to just leaving it and walking out.
There were two members of staff at the tills - one male and one female. of course my turn came when the man was ready to serve... I hid behind the socks and waited for the woman to become available.
There were two members of staff at the tills - one male and one female. of course my turn came when the man was ready to serve... I hid behind the socks and waited for the woman to become available.
Is this some kind of trend, to make women parade through half the store carrying their intimate purchases? It has happened to me before, in Debenhams, but that was at least a temporary thing - they do have a till in the lingerie department but they were short staffed or something so it wasn't operating. But really - whoever it is that makes the decisions about where to place tills in these department stores, don't they realise how personal the purchase of lingerie is for a woman? Do they really think it's reasonable to expect me to show such items to a man I don't know?
21 May 2011
No, we can't
Dear Mr Obama,
I'm an Israeli and, like the majority of Israelis, I have longed for peace for as long as I've lived. The idea that one day we'll be able to just live normal life without people getting killed when they're going to work or doing their shopping or sitting at a café - that is a dream we have been dreaming ever since the State of Israel came into being.
No, that's not true. We've been dreaming that dream for a lot longer. We dreamt that dream whilst being persecuted in a whole load of different countries - we got persecuted in one place so we packed our bags and went elsewhere, hoping that in that place we might be allowed to live in peace. We dreamt that dream when we started to go back to our land, and when Britain promised us a home on that land, and when the world - the League of Nations at the time - gave Britain a mandate to look after our land as a temporary measure and help make this dream happen.
Britain let us down. It took part of our land and gave it to the Arabs, so the territory available for that promised home shrank into a tiny little bit of land. I'm sure you've seen the map plenty of times and you know the size of Jordan as compared to the tiny size of Israel even including the disputed territories which we took back in 1967 and which you want us to now "give back" - as though we'd taken them from their rightful owners! Those disputed territories were never under Palestinian sovereignty - and I can't help wondering how come nobody seemed to contest Jordan's occupation of that area between 1949 and 1967. How come the world did not put pressure on Jordan to give that land to the Palestinians? How come the oil-rich Arab countries did not bother to rehouse these people and left them in refugee camps for almost twenty years?
But for some reason when Israel took it back (and yes, I say "took it back" because it was originally part of our land) the world's perception started to change, and now you are telling us we should go back to the so-called 1967 borders (they weren't borders, they were armistice lines, but that's another story) and I wonder:
Leaving aside for the moment the question of who has more right to that piece of land - because from where I'm looking, and many in my country see it that way, if giving up some of our land would earn us real peace then that's worth it - so leaving aside the question of whose land it really is anyway, here's my question:
What on earth makes you think that we will have peace if we give up those disputed territories and return to the so-called 1967 borders? We didn't have peace in the almost 20 years up to 1967 when the State of Israel existed within the 1949 armistice lines, and these disputed territories were under Jordanian rule. The Arabs kept attacking us during that time. What on earth makes you think that they'll stop attacking us now if we simply go back to how it was then?
There may be some Palestinians who promise they will and actually mean it. I don't know - I can't see inside other people's heads. But what I do know is that there are those who have declared openly that they have no intention of ever stopping as long as we are holding on to one shred of what they regard as "the whole of Palestine" and what we call the Land of Israel. As far as Hamas is concerned, even Tel Aviv is "occupied territory". They have shown absolutely zero inclination towards compromise. Do you really think that if we give them an inch they will not demand the whole mile?
I used to be young and naive and believed that if only we gave the Palestinians a land of their own, all would be well - we could get our dream, we could live side by side in peace and harmony. But looking at history, I can't back up that optimism. Looking at 1948, when the State of Israel was founded on the part of our land which the UN had decided to grant us - the UN had given the Palestinians part of the land, but they said no. They could have had an independent state all this time if they had really wanted to, but instead they chose to believe their Arab brothers who promised to wipe us off the map so that they could have the whole of the land to themselves. Thank God, that plan did not work out and we are alive to tell the tale. But the attempts to wipe us off the map have not ceased, and there is no sign that they're likely to ever stop until the day Jesus comes back and sorts the whole world out.
So in the meantime, we have to do what we can to survive. Because we have nowhere else to go. And without a realistic hope that halving our territory again would bring peace, I don't think we can afford to do that.
I said in the title "no, we can't" and of course it's a play on words, based on your own slogan. But seriously, what I mean is: no, we can't afford to do what you say; and also: no, we can't make peace happen, despite our deep desire and longing for it - not as long as there are people like Hamas around, who are intent on destroying us completely. We long for peace, and we have shown willingness to pay a price for it in terms of giving up land - but there are those who will not settle for just some land, they want it all, and they want us out of there. And we have nowhere else to go.
I'm an Israeli and, like the majority of Israelis, I have longed for peace for as long as I've lived. The idea that one day we'll be able to just live normal life without people getting killed when they're going to work or doing their shopping or sitting at a café - that is a dream we have been dreaming ever since the State of Israel came into being.
No, that's not true. We've been dreaming that dream for a lot longer. We dreamt that dream whilst being persecuted in a whole load of different countries - we got persecuted in one place so we packed our bags and went elsewhere, hoping that in that place we might be allowed to live in peace. We dreamt that dream when we started to go back to our land, and when Britain promised us a home on that land, and when the world - the League of Nations at the time - gave Britain a mandate to look after our land as a temporary measure and help make this dream happen.
Britain let us down. It took part of our land and gave it to the Arabs, so the territory available for that promised home shrank into a tiny little bit of land. I'm sure you've seen the map plenty of times and you know the size of Jordan as compared to the tiny size of Israel even including the disputed territories which we took back in 1967 and which you want us to now "give back" - as though we'd taken them from their rightful owners! Those disputed territories were never under Palestinian sovereignty - and I can't help wondering how come nobody seemed to contest Jordan's occupation of that area between 1949 and 1967. How come the world did not put pressure on Jordan to give that land to the Palestinians? How come the oil-rich Arab countries did not bother to rehouse these people and left them in refugee camps for almost twenty years?
But for some reason when Israel took it back (and yes, I say "took it back" because it was originally part of our land) the world's perception started to change, and now you are telling us we should go back to the so-called 1967 borders (they weren't borders, they were armistice lines, but that's another story) and I wonder:
Leaving aside for the moment the question of who has more right to that piece of land - because from where I'm looking, and many in my country see it that way, if giving up some of our land would earn us real peace then that's worth it - so leaving aside the question of whose land it really is anyway, here's my question:
What on earth makes you think that we will have peace if we give up those disputed territories and return to the so-called 1967 borders? We didn't have peace in the almost 20 years up to 1967 when the State of Israel existed within the 1949 armistice lines, and these disputed territories were under Jordanian rule. The Arabs kept attacking us during that time. What on earth makes you think that they'll stop attacking us now if we simply go back to how it was then?
There may be some Palestinians who promise they will and actually mean it. I don't know - I can't see inside other people's heads. But what I do know is that there are those who have declared openly that they have no intention of ever stopping as long as we are holding on to one shred of what they regard as "the whole of Palestine" and what we call the Land of Israel. As far as Hamas is concerned, even Tel Aviv is "occupied territory". They have shown absolutely zero inclination towards compromise. Do you really think that if we give them an inch they will not demand the whole mile?
I used to be young and naive and believed that if only we gave the Palestinians a land of their own, all would be well - we could get our dream, we could live side by side in peace and harmony. But looking at history, I can't back up that optimism. Looking at 1948, when the State of Israel was founded on the part of our land which the UN had decided to grant us - the UN had given the Palestinians part of the land, but they said no. They could have had an independent state all this time if they had really wanted to, but instead they chose to believe their Arab brothers who promised to wipe us off the map so that they could have the whole of the land to themselves. Thank God, that plan did not work out and we are alive to tell the tale. But the attempts to wipe us off the map have not ceased, and there is no sign that they're likely to ever stop until the day Jesus comes back and sorts the whole world out.
So in the meantime, we have to do what we can to survive. Because we have nowhere else to go. And without a realistic hope that halving our territory again would bring peace, I don't think we can afford to do that.
I said in the title "no, we can't" and of course it's a play on words, based on your own slogan. But seriously, what I mean is: no, we can't afford to do what you say; and also: no, we can't make peace happen, despite our deep desire and longing for it - not as long as there are people like Hamas around, who are intent on destroying us completely. We long for peace, and we have shown willingness to pay a price for it in terms of giving up land - but there are those who will not settle for just some land, they want it all, and they want us out of there. And we have nowhere else to go.
2 May 2011
Vulnerability and the Royal Wedding
or: the price of our freedom is loss of security
Brené Brown got me thinking about vulnerability. (Warning: that video clip I linked to is about 20 minutes' long. Well worth the time though.) And then came the Royal Wedding, and surprisingly it came with not just lace and finery and fairytale coach and horses, but some food for thought too.
One of the things that moved me in Will and Kate's wedding was something in the sermon, about how marriage can provide a space in which people can grow, and be transformed into who they are meant to be - or in other words, grow and fulfil their potential. This is true, of course, only when a marriage is functioning the way it ought to function, and the bishop did talk about the importance of giving each other space and not trying to control the other person - which sadly does happen, and it's not just men trying to dominate - my own gender has its own manipulative methods. There's a sad old joke about marriage that goes: what are the three words on a bride's mind on her wedding day? aisle, altar, hymn. Say it out loud and see what you get. My own husband knows he's safe because there wasn't an altar at our wedding :) but seriously - I know my role as his wife is not to try and change him but to love him as he is, and that is exactly the key to what the bishop was talking about. Marriage, when it's functioning the way it's supposed to, means each of you is in a place of safety, knowing you are loved as you are, and it's in that safety of being accepted as you are that you can grow and be transformed.
Brené Brown talks about the need to make ourselves vulnerable in order to receive the love we need, and I'm wondering: is this problem she has identified perhaps a newish problem, as a result of changes in western society over perhaps the last five decades or so? Let me try and unpack this thought.
Marriage as a place of safety, where you know you are loved as you are and therefore you feel safe enough to explore things and to find out more about who you really are, you feel secure enough to take some risks and discover to your amazement that, yes, you can actually do XYZ... this kind of marriage is more rare in the west today, because at some stage we rebelled against "the institution of marriage" and claimed the freedom to do whatever we like, we looked in disdain at the old-fashioned ways of previous generations and said: what's the point of staying in a marriage when you don't love each other any more - putting the cart before the horse, not realising that love in a marriage is not primarily about having romantic feelings but about choosing and promising to show love to the other person even when you don't feel like it, so that they will have that safe place in which they can be themselves... and also so that the children will grow up in a safe place.
So today we have people getting married but not really knowing that they're in a safe place, not knowing if/when the other person will get fed up with them for some reason, or have a mid-life crisis, or meet someone else and fall in love and then, according to the values du jour, they will naturally get up and go because, according to the values du jour, there is no point staying in a marriage when the feeling is gone.
It seems to me that at least part of the reason there is so much of this feeling of unworthiness that Brené Brown talks about, part of the reason why so many people are scared to be openly themselves in front of others, is because we in the west have rebelled against the very things that were giving us a sense of security, safety, belonging - in something very much resembling a teenage tantrum, we threw away our security blankets, yelling that we're all growed-up and don't need this stuff any more, and now we're scared and lonely and we can't get our security blankets back because... well... how? Once we've made it perfectly ok and acceptable for someone to walk out on a marriage at any given moment for any reason whatsoever, how can we now make it not ok again? We demanded that freedom, but of course the flip side of Mrs Smith being free to walk out on a marriage is that she has to live with the knowledge that at any point in time Mr Smith might walk out on her, so the price of that freedom is the loss of security.
And children are growing up with the knowledge that this is what life is like - even if their own parents stay together, they'll know some kids whose parents have split up, and this is bound to make them grow up more anxious - if I see this stuff happening in other families, how can I know that my world won't turn upside down tomorrow?
So of course people are feeling vulnerable and scared. We have - out of our desire for greater freedom, and a contempt for old-fashioned values without taking the time to explore their merits - removed something that was providing us with a sense of security and belonging, and turned our world into a much scarier and lonelier place.
When marriage functions the way it should, it can be a safe place in which two people can grow and fulfil their potential; a safe place for them to bring up children; and a safe place out of which they can reach out to other people, to those who are lonely. If you're in a place of safety, you can do that, you can be more generous, you can show more kindness, you can think of others because you're not worrying about your own situation.
Safety, stability, commitment - these things may sound boring, but we need them so much! and we have to be willing to give them if we want to receive them.
Brené Brown got me thinking about vulnerability. (Warning: that video clip I linked to is about 20 minutes' long. Well worth the time though.) And then came the Royal Wedding, and surprisingly it came with not just lace and finery and fairytale coach and horses, but some food for thought too.
One of the things that moved me in Will and Kate's wedding was something in the sermon, about how marriage can provide a space in which people can grow, and be transformed into who they are meant to be - or in other words, grow and fulfil their potential. This is true, of course, only when a marriage is functioning the way it ought to function, and the bishop did talk about the importance of giving each other space and not trying to control the other person - which sadly does happen, and it's not just men trying to dominate - my own gender has its own manipulative methods. There's a sad old joke about marriage that goes: what are the three words on a bride's mind on her wedding day? aisle, altar, hymn. Say it out loud and see what you get. My own husband knows he's safe because there wasn't an altar at our wedding :) but seriously - I know my role as his wife is not to try and change him but to love him as he is, and that is exactly the key to what the bishop was talking about. Marriage, when it's functioning the way it's supposed to, means each of you is in a place of safety, knowing you are loved as you are, and it's in that safety of being accepted as you are that you can grow and be transformed.
Brené Brown talks about the need to make ourselves vulnerable in order to receive the love we need, and I'm wondering: is this problem she has identified perhaps a newish problem, as a result of changes in western society over perhaps the last five decades or so? Let me try and unpack this thought.
Marriage as a place of safety, where you know you are loved as you are and therefore you feel safe enough to explore things and to find out more about who you really are, you feel secure enough to take some risks and discover to your amazement that, yes, you can actually do XYZ... this kind of marriage is more rare in the west today, because at some stage we rebelled against "the institution of marriage" and claimed the freedom to do whatever we like, we looked in disdain at the old-fashioned ways of previous generations and said: what's the point of staying in a marriage when you don't love each other any more - putting the cart before the horse, not realising that love in a marriage is not primarily about having romantic feelings but about choosing and promising to show love to the other person even when you don't feel like it, so that they will have that safe place in which they can be themselves... and also so that the children will grow up in a safe place.
So today we have people getting married but not really knowing that they're in a safe place, not knowing if/when the other person will get fed up with them for some reason, or have a mid-life crisis, or meet someone else and fall in love and then, according to the values du jour, they will naturally get up and go because, according to the values du jour, there is no point staying in a marriage when the feeling is gone.
It seems to me that at least part of the reason there is so much of this feeling of unworthiness that Brené Brown talks about, part of the reason why so many people are scared to be openly themselves in front of others, is because we in the west have rebelled against the very things that were giving us a sense of security, safety, belonging - in something very much resembling a teenage tantrum, we threw away our security blankets, yelling that we're all growed-up and don't need this stuff any more, and now we're scared and lonely and we can't get our security blankets back because... well... how? Once we've made it perfectly ok and acceptable for someone to walk out on a marriage at any given moment for any reason whatsoever, how can we now make it not ok again? We demanded that freedom, but of course the flip side of Mrs Smith being free to walk out on a marriage is that she has to live with the knowledge that at any point in time Mr Smith might walk out on her, so the price of that freedom is the loss of security.
And children are growing up with the knowledge that this is what life is like - even if their own parents stay together, they'll know some kids whose parents have split up, and this is bound to make them grow up more anxious - if I see this stuff happening in other families, how can I know that my world won't turn upside down tomorrow?
So of course people are feeling vulnerable and scared. We have - out of our desire for greater freedom, and a contempt for old-fashioned values without taking the time to explore their merits - removed something that was providing us with a sense of security and belonging, and turned our world into a much scarier and lonelier place.
When marriage functions the way it should, it can be a safe place in which two people can grow and fulfil their potential; a safe place for them to bring up children; and a safe place out of which they can reach out to other people, to those who are lonely. If you're in a place of safety, you can do that, you can be more generous, you can show more kindness, you can think of others because you're not worrying about your own situation.
Safety, stability, commitment - these things may sound boring, but we need them so much! and we have to be willing to give them if we want to receive them.
26 Mar 2011
Why democracy isn't enough
With all the recent turmoil in the Arab world, the subject of democracy keeps coming up. I hear people talk (or write) as though if only these countries will have democracy, all will be well. And considering these nations have lived under various forms of tyranny, I can see how people might think that all that's needed to make things better is that people will have the freedom to appoint their chosen government - which is basically what democracy is about.
The thing is, when we talk about democracy we often assume other factors which are not automatically part of democracy - we just associate these factors with democracy, because (and I'm talking about my own experience growing up in Israel and about my impression of what it's like here in the UK and also in the US - I don't know enough about other countries) we've been brought up on a kind of package deal, which includes stuff like: democratic rule; freedom of speech; equality of all citizens before the law; all sorts of rights for the individual, which we take for granted - but all these things are extras we have added on to the principle of democracy, the principle of a bunch of people ruling themselves.
I don't often find myself agreeing with rabbis, but there was an excellent article in The Times last Saturday by Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi here in the UK, who points out that this package deal we have in the west is a result of the combination of two different cultural influences: Greek and Jewish. From the Greeks we got democracy, but from the Jewish Bible comes the idea that each person, whether they are part of the strong majority or part of a small minority, whether they are rich or poor, whatever their status in society, each person deserves to be treated with respect, each person deserves not to be trampled on.
He gives an example which amazed me because I'd grown up with this biblical story (II Samuel 11-12) and had never, for one second, paused to think how amazing and radical the idea is - it seemed so obvious to me...
The example he gives is of King David's treatment of Uriah the Hittite - in brief: the king had taken a fancy to Uriah's wife; the king had Uriah killed and took his wife; Nathan the prophet rebukes the king and the king recognises he has done wrong and begs God to forgive him.
I'll say that again: the king recognises he has done wrong.
This had seemed so obvious to me until I read this article and realised how radical this idea was against the background of other cultures at the time, where a king could do as he pleased! The idea that Uriah had a right to his life and to his wife, that he had a right not to be killed at the king's whim and that he had a right not to have his wife taken from him just because the king fancied her - this was not the norm. (And Uriah was a Hittite - part of what we would today refer to as an ethnic minority.)
And the way Nathan got his message through to the king was through a parable about a rich man taking a poor man's sheep - the king identifies that as clearly wrong, but again, in plenty of other cultures people would have thought nothing of it, it would have seemed normal that people with power will use it against those who are weaker. But the Bible speaks very strongly about justice for the weak and the downtrodden, about being kind to the poor and the orphans and the widows and the aliens in our midst, about justice and mercy and charity.
And it's these values which make our democracies work so well (most of the time). Without these rights and freedoms which we take for granted, rights and freedoms for each individual, including minorities - without these, democracy can be extremely oppressive for people who are part of a minority.
Think about it: democracy means the majority gets to say what goes. What happens when the majority decide that people of your minority are evil and should be made to... I don't know... walk around with a yellow badge on their clothing?
As history has taught us, these values which we in the west today tend to think of as "inalienable rights" - they are not common to all cultures, they are not things we can assume everyone will agree on. And seeing as we don't believe in forcing our beliefs onto other people, we can't exactly go around the world making everyone live according to these ideals...
The thing is, when we talk about democracy we often assume other factors which are not automatically part of democracy - we just associate these factors with democracy, because (and I'm talking about my own experience growing up in Israel and about my impression of what it's like here in the UK and also in the US - I don't know enough about other countries) we've been brought up on a kind of package deal, which includes stuff like: democratic rule; freedom of speech; equality of all citizens before the law; all sorts of rights for the individual, which we take for granted - but all these things are extras we have added on to the principle of democracy, the principle of a bunch of people ruling themselves.
I don't often find myself agreeing with rabbis, but there was an excellent article in The Times last Saturday by Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi here in the UK, who points out that this package deal we have in the west is a result of the combination of two different cultural influences: Greek and Jewish. From the Greeks we got democracy, but from the Jewish Bible comes the idea that each person, whether they are part of the strong majority or part of a small minority, whether they are rich or poor, whatever their status in society, each person deserves to be treated with respect, each person deserves not to be trampled on.
He gives an example which amazed me because I'd grown up with this biblical story (II Samuel 11-12) and had never, for one second, paused to think how amazing and radical the idea is - it seemed so obvious to me...
The example he gives is of King David's treatment of Uriah the Hittite - in brief: the king had taken a fancy to Uriah's wife; the king had Uriah killed and took his wife; Nathan the prophet rebukes the king and the king recognises he has done wrong and begs God to forgive him.
I'll say that again: the king recognises he has done wrong.
This had seemed so obvious to me until I read this article and realised how radical this idea was against the background of other cultures at the time, where a king could do as he pleased! The idea that Uriah had a right to his life and to his wife, that he had a right not to be killed at the king's whim and that he had a right not to have his wife taken from him just because the king fancied her - this was not the norm. (And Uriah was a Hittite - part of what we would today refer to as an ethnic minority.)
And the way Nathan got his message through to the king was through a parable about a rich man taking a poor man's sheep - the king identifies that as clearly wrong, but again, in plenty of other cultures people would have thought nothing of it, it would have seemed normal that people with power will use it against those who are weaker. But the Bible speaks very strongly about justice for the weak and the downtrodden, about being kind to the poor and the orphans and the widows and the aliens in our midst, about justice and mercy and charity.
And it's these values which make our democracies work so well (most of the time). Without these rights and freedoms which we take for granted, rights and freedoms for each individual, including minorities - without these, democracy can be extremely oppressive for people who are part of a minority.
Think about it: democracy means the majority gets to say what goes. What happens when the majority decide that people of your minority are evil and should be made to... I don't know... walk around with a yellow badge on their clothing?
As history has taught us, these values which we in the west today tend to think of as "inalienable rights" - they are not common to all cultures, they are not things we can assume everyone will agree on. And seeing as we don't believe in forcing our beliefs onto other people, we can't exactly go around the world making everyone live according to these ideals...
11 Feb 2011
Someone is wrong on the internet
 |
| from http://www.xkcd.com |
I came across an interesting linguistic analysis of the wording of this familiar cartoon - starting with whether or not the word order is wrong, then moving from there to why it's not just right but also funny, which he reckons is to do with the difference in meaning between "wrong" in "something is wrong" and "wrong" in "someone is wrong". Interesting, I thought.
But the bit I really loved was where he says: "someone is pretty much always wrong. This is normally not something that has to be put right before you can rest easy."
So simple, so profound, so true - and not just when it's on the internet.
8 Feb 2011
so, am I a bloggeress?
There's a guy called Oliver Kamm who writes a weekly column in The Times called The Pedant - for obvious reasons this is one of my favourite bits of the Saturday paper :)
Usually I just read his column and nod enthusiastically, but this time he got me thinking, as he's picked a rather thorny issue - he's talking about the rather quaint and outdated word "authoress", and a bit more generally about the change in English usage in the last half century or so - the tendency to avoid gender-specific terminology so as not to offend.
I found myself wondering - how come "authoress" in English would bug me (and I know it would, just as it bugs me when I hear people talk about "a lady doctor") whilst in Hebrew it doesn't bug me that the word that would be used to describe me if I ever get round to finishing that novel would be gender-specific. But then I answered myself that of course it wouldn't bug me in Hebrew because in Hebrew that is normal - every noun has a gender, there is no gender-neutral form, so there's nothing unusual about the fact that the words for author are either masculine or feminine. Whereas in English most nouns are not gender-specific, so when you add "ess" at the end of a noun, the effect is that you are stressing the gender - and the question then is: why stress it? why mention it at all? is it relevant? does it matter if a book was written by a man or a woman? or if we go back to my other example of what seems to me quaint British usage - "lady doctor" - does it matter if the doctor is male or female?
At which point I argue back with myself and say, well, actually sometimes it can matter.
In the case of the doctor, it actually matters to me sometimes as a woman that I see a woman doctor and not a man - it rather depends on what the problem is and how embarrassed I might feel, as a woman, discussing it with a man. This was actually the reason that when my husband and I moved here we registered with a doctors' surgery that is not the nearest to us, because the closest one has only male doctors.
In the case of the author it doesn't matter to me personally, but I can imagine there might be women who prefer to read novels written by women; or men who prefer to read novels written by men. I can't see any reason to hold that against them.
So yes, gender can sometimes be relevant, it can be a useful piece of information. But here's the thing - you only get that information if it's a woman, not if it's a man. And I think that's why it can be annoying - it can feel like we women are being singled out, and it can feel like we're being singled out as being of less value. This might not be the intention, but because of the long history of women being belittled, regarded as less intelligent, less "up to the job" in certain areas (like medicine, or - amazingly - like writing!!!) - and when I say "history" that's not to say that these prejudices have totally disappeared off the face of the earth - because of this, we have good reason to assume that when we're being singled out, it's for the purpose of belittling us, as if to say: hahaha, isn't it funny that a woman, with her fluffy feminine brain, is playing at being a doctor...
Oliver Kamm ends his column with this:
I needed to think this through, because I feel that sometimes the avoidance of gender-specific terminology can get a bit over the top. There's all of that chaos we get into with saying "he or she" because some people aren't comfortable with the use of "he" as a non-gender-specific pronoun. There's all that stuff about saying "person" instead of "man" because some people aren't happy with the use of the word "man" to signify mankind in general. So I don't want to just go with the flow - I needed to work out for myself whether or not I agree that the term "authoress" had better go on the scrapheap.
But yes, speaking as a writer who happens to be female - let's leave the "ess" ending to animals (e.g. lioness), royalty (princesses) and nobility (e.g. duchess). It's annoying and patronising when it's used for an occupation.
Usually I just read his column and nod enthusiastically, but this time he got me thinking, as he's picked a rather thorny issue - he's talking about the rather quaint and outdated word "authoress", and a bit more generally about the change in English usage in the last half century or so - the tendency to avoid gender-specific terminology so as not to offend.
I found myself wondering - how come "authoress" in English would bug me (and I know it would, just as it bugs me when I hear people talk about "a lady doctor") whilst in Hebrew it doesn't bug me that the word that would be used to describe me if I ever get round to finishing that novel would be gender-specific. But then I answered myself that of course it wouldn't bug me in Hebrew because in Hebrew that is normal - every noun has a gender, there is no gender-neutral form, so there's nothing unusual about the fact that the words for author are either masculine or feminine. Whereas in English most nouns are not gender-specific, so when you add "ess" at the end of a noun, the effect is that you are stressing the gender - and the question then is: why stress it? why mention it at all? is it relevant? does it matter if a book was written by a man or a woman? or if we go back to my other example of what seems to me quaint British usage - "lady doctor" - does it matter if the doctor is male or female?
At which point I argue back with myself and say, well, actually sometimes it can matter.
In the case of the doctor, it actually matters to me sometimes as a woman that I see a woman doctor and not a man - it rather depends on what the problem is and how embarrassed I might feel, as a woman, discussing it with a man. This was actually the reason that when my husband and I moved here we registered with a doctors' surgery that is not the nearest to us, because the closest one has only male doctors.
In the case of the author it doesn't matter to me personally, but I can imagine there might be women who prefer to read novels written by women; or men who prefer to read novels written by men. I can't see any reason to hold that against them.
So yes, gender can sometimes be relevant, it can be a useful piece of information. But here's the thing - you only get that information if it's a woman, not if it's a man. And I think that's why it can be annoying - it can feel like we women are being singled out, and it can feel like we're being singled out as being of less value. This might not be the intention, but because of the long history of women being belittled, regarded as less intelligent, less "up to the job" in certain areas (like medicine, or - amazingly - like writing!!!) - and when I say "history" that's not to say that these prejudices have totally disappeared off the face of the earth - because of this, we have good reason to assume that when we're being singled out, it's for the purpose of belittling us, as if to say: hahaha, isn't it funny that a woman, with her fluffy feminine brain, is playing at being a doctor...
Oliver Kamm ends his column with this:
An "authoress" is a writer of trifles, not a female writer. If used at all, it should denote writers such as Barbara Cartland or Judith Krantz, not Jane Austen and George Eliot.And I think that sums up what the problem is with this kind of terminology - that's the kind of thing it implies, a kind of ditzy femininity, all pink fluffiness and not much serious thought. That's why it's offensive.
I needed to think this through, because I feel that sometimes the avoidance of gender-specific terminology can get a bit over the top. There's all of that chaos we get into with saying "he or she" because some people aren't comfortable with the use of "he" as a non-gender-specific pronoun. There's all that stuff about saying "person" instead of "man" because some people aren't happy with the use of the word "man" to signify mankind in general. So I don't want to just go with the flow - I needed to work out for myself whether or not I agree that the term "authoress" had better go on the scrapheap.
But yes, speaking as a writer who happens to be female - let's leave the "ess" ending to animals (e.g. lioness), royalty (princesses) and nobility (e.g. duchess). It's annoying and patronising when it's used for an occupation.
15 Jan 2011
"the grouches pull you down"
had one of those inspiring powerpoint thingummies on the email - you know the ones - pretty pictures and bits of text that sounds like sage advice, and some of it is but some of it isn't, and if you're not careful you just absorb it all amongst the pretty scenery.
amongst the advice about how to keep young, some of which was lovely, there was this bit:
Keep only cheerful friends - the grouches pull you down.
and I'm wondering - if everyone were to follow this advice, who would be left to show love to the grouches? who would be there to help lift their spirits? if everyone followed this advice, I would have remained a grouch forever.
so no, don't keep only cheerful friends - don't be so selfish. take some of the joy you have and go share it with the nearest grouch. they need it.
amongst the advice about how to keep young, some of which was lovely, there was this bit:
Keep only cheerful friends - the grouches pull you down.
and I'm wondering - if everyone were to follow this advice, who would be left to show love to the grouches? who would be there to help lift their spirits? if everyone followed this advice, I would have remained a grouch forever.
so no, don't keep only cheerful friends - don't be so selfish. take some of the joy you have and go share it with the nearest grouch. they need it.
The more we know, the more we care?
An interesting question came up in last Saturday's Times - they'd had some criticism from readers about the apparently-out-of-context inclusion of property values in news reports, e.g. 'Speaking at his £600,000 home in Hampshire, Mr Yeates...' in an item about the murder of Mr Yeates' daughter. Some readers wrote in, and Sally Baker, who writes the fascinating Feedback column, responded with an explanation about the need to add 'colour' to news reports, or else they 'would consist only of the barest "who, what, when, where, how" details, and leave too much to the imagination.' She ends with this: 'if we know a little more about them, doesn't it help the rest of us to sympathise with those caught up in such rare and ghastly events, while we offer silent thanks that our own lives have been spared?' [emphasis mine]
And I think the answer to this question is: yes and no... it's tricky.
Yes, a bit of detail does help to make a person more real to us, less of an anonymous "statistic". That's one of the reasons for giving people made-up names when for some reason you need to protect their identity - it's a lot easier to feel for someone if you read about them as John or as Ann than if they're nameless.
But as soon as you add any detail, as soon as you start colouring in the picture, you also risk alienating some of your readers, you risk a collision with some of your readers' prejudices - including those we're not conscious of.
Even a name says something - a person's name can give you clues about ethnic origin, or social class, or it can kind of ping a connection in your brain because you've known a person called, say, Sandra and you have an image in your mind of what Sandras are like.
And mentioning the value of someone's property - that definitely pings into people's prejudices, big time. It's right up there with mentioning in the UK that someone was privately educated - that definitely reduces the sympathy levels amongst a large chunk of the population (though possibly slightly less amongst the readership of The Times).
On the counselling course we had to write an essay about prejudice - to identify some of our own and look at how they may affect our ability to be of help to certain clients. It was a fascinating and humbling exercise, because once you start listing all your prejudices you see you're not quite the totally impartial and accepting kind of person you'd like to be... none of us are. We take one look at a person and have a whole set of preconceived ideas about them just based on their looks, their clothes, their hair style, their jewellery. oh, and their body language of course... I heard a really interesting example about body language from someone who came to England from Jamaica: about youngsters from her culture getting into trouble with the police here in England because these boys had been brought up never to look an adult in the eye, they were taught it's not respectful, they would lower their eyes as a mark of respect; but to the English policemen, that looked like they've got something to hide.
But I wasn't going to get into misunderstandings, just prejudice. Just the fact that we humans do have certain preconceived ideas about people who live in expensive houses/who went to certain schools/who drive certain cars/who give their kids certain names/etc etc etc - it's endless. So the more detail you include in a news report, the more chances are for people to lose sympathy for the person caught up in "ghastly events"... whilst at the same time it is necessary to fill in some detail so that the person will become real to us. And of course some of the details will affect different people differently - my prejudices are not identical to yours.
And I think the answer to this question is: yes and no... it's tricky.
Yes, a bit of detail does help to make a person more real to us, less of an anonymous "statistic". That's one of the reasons for giving people made-up names when for some reason you need to protect their identity - it's a lot easier to feel for someone if you read about them as John or as Ann than if they're nameless.
But as soon as you add any detail, as soon as you start colouring in the picture, you also risk alienating some of your readers, you risk a collision with some of your readers' prejudices - including those we're not conscious of.
Even a name says something - a person's name can give you clues about ethnic origin, or social class, or it can kind of ping a connection in your brain because you've known a person called, say, Sandra and you have an image in your mind of what Sandras are like.
And mentioning the value of someone's property - that definitely pings into people's prejudices, big time. It's right up there with mentioning in the UK that someone was privately educated - that definitely reduces the sympathy levels amongst a large chunk of the population (though possibly slightly less amongst the readership of The Times).
On the counselling course we had to write an essay about prejudice - to identify some of our own and look at how they may affect our ability to be of help to certain clients. It was a fascinating and humbling exercise, because once you start listing all your prejudices you see you're not quite the totally impartial and accepting kind of person you'd like to be... none of us are. We take one look at a person and have a whole set of preconceived ideas about them just based on their looks, their clothes, their hair style, their jewellery. oh, and their body language of course... I heard a really interesting example about body language from someone who came to England from Jamaica: about youngsters from her culture getting into trouble with the police here in England because these boys had been brought up never to look an adult in the eye, they were taught it's not respectful, they would lower their eyes as a mark of respect; but to the English policemen, that looked like they've got something to hide.
But I wasn't going to get into misunderstandings, just prejudice. Just the fact that we humans do have certain preconceived ideas about people who live in expensive houses/who went to certain schools/who drive certain cars/who give their kids certain names/etc etc etc - it's endless. So the more detail you include in a news report, the more chances are for people to lose sympathy for the person caught up in "ghastly events"... whilst at the same time it is necessary to fill in some detail so that the person will become real to us. And of course some of the details will affect different people differently - my prejudices are not identical to yours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)