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.
20 Nov 2010
great expectations
or: just because you got hurt, it doesn't mean they're nasty
sometimes people hurt other people not because of any nasty intentions but simply because of the two parties having different expectations of whatever-it-is that they're getting into.
I remember years ago when I had a mad crush on a very charming Irish guy and I came across a book that was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to tell you all you ever needed to know about Irish men. The one and only thing I remember from that book now was this: when an Irish guy says to a woman "I'll call you" - she hears "I'll call you tomorrow" whilst what he means is "I'll call you sometime between now and the day I die"...
I also remember another crush, this time over a colleague at work (yes, I know, bad idea, but I was young and foolish in my mid 30s) - a phone call from him asking if I'd like to come for lunch at some trendy new place round the corner certainly got my expectations up!!! but he hadn't said "just you and me", so I couldn't blame him when I was upset to find there was a whole bunch of us round the table. I was hurt, but he hadn't set out to hurt my feelings. (at least I don't think he had. of course I did also meet some guys along the way who were actually nasty, but I don't think this one was.)
but this isn't just about romance - the expectations thing happens in all sorts of situations. I think there's tons of scope for it to happen on social networking sites - Jane invites Diane to be her "friend" on an SN site, Jane being the kind of person who collects online contacts with no particular intention to build relationships, and Diane being a very needy person who has suffered lots of rejection and looks at every such invitation as a promise of undying friendship.
it's tricky, because so much of this stuff goes unsaid. people don't often state clearly what their expectations are. often we just assume that everyone else sees things the same way we do. sometimes we're embarrassed to confess to our weakness, so we don't state our needs - what if I say I'm looking for really deep friendship and it turns out the other person wasn't, I might feel I'd made an idiot of myself.
no contracts, no signed agreements, no listing of the ground rules - therefore plenty of scope for misunderstandings and for disappointment. we let other people down sometimes without being aware of it at all - like that guy at work who invited me to lunch, not knowing what I was hoping for...
and so, when we get hurt because someone didn't live up to the hopes we had, the thing is to look at the situation realistically and ask ourselves: did X actually promise us this rose garden that we were hoping for, or is it just what we allowed ourselves to believe?
it's hard to do that - to separate out our hurt from the people who hurt us. but if someone steps on my toe when they don't even know my toe is there, I can't really blame them.
so one goes somewhere quiet to weep, and forgives them for they knew not what they were doing.
sometimes people hurt other people not because of any nasty intentions but simply because of the two parties having different expectations of whatever-it-is that they're getting into.
I remember years ago when I had a mad crush on a very charming Irish guy and I came across a book that was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to tell you all you ever needed to know about Irish men. The one and only thing I remember from that book now was this: when an Irish guy says to a woman "I'll call you" - she hears "I'll call you tomorrow" whilst what he means is "I'll call you sometime between now and the day I die"...
I also remember another crush, this time over a colleague at work (yes, I know, bad idea, but I was young and foolish in my mid 30s) - a phone call from him asking if I'd like to come for lunch at some trendy new place round the corner certainly got my expectations up!!! but he hadn't said "just you and me", so I couldn't blame him when I was upset to find there was a whole bunch of us round the table. I was hurt, but he hadn't set out to hurt my feelings. (at least I don't think he had. of course I did also meet some guys along the way who were actually nasty, but I don't think this one was.)
but this isn't just about romance - the expectations thing happens in all sorts of situations. I think there's tons of scope for it to happen on social networking sites - Jane invites Diane to be her "friend" on an SN site, Jane being the kind of person who collects online contacts with no particular intention to build relationships, and Diane being a very needy person who has suffered lots of rejection and looks at every such invitation as a promise of undying friendship.
it's tricky, because so much of this stuff goes unsaid. people don't often state clearly what their expectations are. often we just assume that everyone else sees things the same way we do. sometimes we're embarrassed to confess to our weakness, so we don't state our needs - what if I say I'm looking for really deep friendship and it turns out the other person wasn't, I might feel I'd made an idiot of myself.
no contracts, no signed agreements, no listing of the ground rules - therefore plenty of scope for misunderstandings and for disappointment. we let other people down sometimes without being aware of it at all - like that guy at work who invited me to lunch, not knowing what I was hoping for...
and so, when we get hurt because someone didn't live up to the hopes we had, the thing is to look at the situation realistically and ask ourselves: did X actually promise us this rose garden that we were hoping for, or is it just what we allowed ourselves to believe?
it's hard to do that - to separate out our hurt from the people who hurt us. but if someone steps on my toe when they don't even know my toe is there, I can't really blame them.
so one goes somewhere quiet to weep, and forgives them for they knew not what they were doing.
27 Oct 2010
the clear English award...
does not go this year to HM Revenue & Customs (that's the tax authorities here in the UK) for their "How to fill in your Short Tax Return" guide, which had my head spinning whilst staring at one paragraph in particular.
(Note: the "did you start" in the heading refers to when it was that I started to be self-employed - I started in November 2007 and therefore this paragraph applies to me; the british tax year runs from 6 April to 5 April and the tax return I'm having to complete now is for the year to 5 April 2010.)
here's what they say - clear as mud...
(Note: the "did you start" in the heading refers to when it was that I started to be self-employed - I started in November 2007 and therefore this paragraph applies to me; the british tax year runs from 6 April to 5 April and the tax return I'm having to complete now is for the year to 5 April 2010.)
here's what they say - clear as mud...
Did you start between 6 April 2007 and 5 April 2008?I did eventually manage to understand what I'm supposed to do (I think) but I could have had more hair left on my head if they'd have actually written this thing in English in the first place.
If you made up your first books to a date before 5 April 2009, put in boxes 3.7 to 3.10 (or 3.11) the figures for the year beginning on the day after your last end of year date, and ending on the end of year date between 6 April 2009 and 5 April 2010.
If you made up your first books to a date after 5 April 2009, you cannot use this form.
11 Oct 2010
so fed up with all this "93% won't" nonsense!
once again I get an email supporting a good cause but absolutely doing my head in with the emotional blackmail that's added in: 93% of people won't forward this... will you be one of those who... yada yada
if only they didn't include this rubbish, I might have actually read the whole thing, and who knows, I might even have chosen to forward the email. but I'm afraid I get so annoyed when I see these things that I just press Delete.
maybe this is why 93% won't forward it? because 93% are fed up to the back teeth with the amount of emotional blackmail they get from their friends on the email? (not to mention all those facebook status update things.)
how about a slightly more respectful approach? how about emailing and saying: you know, there's this cause which I feel is important, I wonder if you'd like to support it to by forwarding the email to others? I wonder what percentage of people would rise to that...
if only they didn't include this rubbish, I might have actually read the whole thing, and who knows, I might even have chosen to forward the email. but I'm afraid I get so annoyed when I see these things that I just press Delete.
maybe this is why 93% won't forward it? because 93% are fed up to the back teeth with the amount of emotional blackmail they get from their friends on the email? (not to mention all those facebook status update things.)
how about a slightly more respectful approach? how about emailing and saying: you know, there's this cause which I feel is important, I wonder if you'd like to support it to by forwarding the email to others? I wonder what percentage of people would rise to that...
5 Oct 2010
come back logic, all is forgiven
Again and again I see this stuff in blogs and in replies to blogs: people saying there's no such thing as absolute truth, there's what's true for you and what's true for me... and I find myself imagining this scene:
I want to know what drugs everybody has been taking.
And I sure hope what I bought in that 4-pint container this afternoon doesn't turn out to be strawberry ice cream, because it won't go that well with my muesli in the morning.
I'm in the supermarket, standing in the milk aisle, looking at the milk. I can see blue top milk and green top milk, I can see two-pint containers and four-pint containers and one-pint containers of milk.A man standing next to me says: hey, you want to say it's milk - that's cool. if that's what makes you happy, you go on thinking it's milk. that's your truth. me - I see it as strawberry ice cream. that's my truth.
Another guy comes along and says: that's fine, that's your truth, as long as it makes you happy... to me this is the Eiffel Tower.
I want to know what drugs everybody has been taking.
And I sure hope what I bought in that 4-pint container this afternoon doesn't turn out to be strawberry ice cream, because it won't go that well with my muesli in the morning.
30 Sept 2010
some ramblings about the pursuit of happiness
this subject has been coming at me from various directions recently - one friend posted an Ayn Rand quote and another posted something from the American Declaration of Independence, and it's got me into this very rambling train of thought, full of "on the other hand"s. So, as is my wont when these things happen, I've come here to ramble.
the Ayn Rand quote had two parts - the first was about valuing yourself, the second was about fighting for your happiness. the first bit I have no problem with whatsoever.
in fact, I believe we humans go through a humungous amount of unnecessary suffering because we undervalue ourselves. and I believe one of the most important messages people need to hear is: you are precious, you were made in God's image, he loves you so much that he sent his son to die in your place - that's how precious you are, not just to some ordinary human but to the creator of the universe himself!
so, yes, value yourself. definitely. you are precious, significant, a unique individual with your own unique gifts and God regards you as precious.
but does that necessarily mean you should fight for your happiness, as Ayn Rand suggested? (I'm not going to try and unpick the thing in the American Declaration of Independence about a right to pursue your happiness - the whole issue of what we mean by "a right" and where we might get these "rights" from is a whole 'nother story. Not for now.)
Now, I need to slightly digress here and say: sometimes there's stuff we read which can be really valuable for a certain person because of where they're at right now, and for another person it could be useless, or even dangerous, because of where they're at. It's to do with the journey we've been through, the things we have struggled with, the things we have yet to learn, the emotional scars that still need healing, etc.
It's a bit like the "slow" signs on the roads. I remember in one of my driving lessons, driving through a rather bendy road where the speed limit was 60mph but I was a bit scared so I was probably doing 40, I came to a "slow" sign and my driving instructor saw me reach for the brake pedal and said: no, don't slow down, that sign is for people doing 60 and more.
So if someone has been doing 25 on the "pursuit of happiness" road then perhaps they do need encouragement to speed up a bit. Whereas for those who tend to go over the speed limit anyway, what is more helpful is a "slow" sign.
End of detour. Back to the matter in hand: pursuing happiness, fighting for your happiness - here are my jumbled thoughts.
My immediate reaction, seeing this quote on a Christian friend's blog, was: but how can you square fighting for your happiness with the call to seek first the kingdom of God, trusting that he will provide all that we need? or with that stuff Jesus said about taking up your cross and following him? not to mention being prepared to face persecution for your faith?
But on the other hand - didn't Jesus say he came so that we may have abundant life? and doesn't God love me and want me to be happy?
And then again - what is happiness anyway? and how would one go about pursuing it, or fighting for it? Doesn't happiness tend to find you in some very unexpected places, when you're busy doing other things, maybe even doing things for other people - when you've decided to take up your cross, to forgo your own happiness for the sake of others?
We've been told to love others as we love ourselves - which does kind of presuppose that we do love ourselves, and if I met someone who doesn't then I would start with that, I wouldn't start by preaching selflessness to them. This goes back to my earlier driving analogy. If a person is very egocentric then they need to learn to love others more, but if a person is a virtual doormat then they need to learn to value themselves more.
But assuming we've got that bit in place, the loving ourselves bit, then we are told to love others as we love ourselves - so pursuing my own happiness shouldn't be at the top of my agenda. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there at all - just that it shouldn't become more important than pursuing other people's happiness.
As a Christian, what should be at the top of my agenda? Loving God and loving others.
Jesus told us to seek first God's kingdom and trust that our Father knows what we need and will take care of us. So yes, God loves me and wants what's best for me, and knowing how much he values me, how precious I am to him, I can trust him to provide all that I need. (though not necessarily what I'd like and when I'd like it...) I don't think he wants me to put my efforts into chasing after happiness, I think he'd much rather I pursued his agenda and not mine, trusting in his love and faithfulness.
And of course if I love God, then doing his will is where I'll find true happiness.
But on the other hand... if a person has been overdoing the selfless sacrifice side of things, then it may be that God's message to them where they're at is: hey, loosen up a bit, you don't actually have a responsibility to fix the problems of everyone in the universe - that's my job. Stop working so hard. Go get an ice cream, take a walk in the park, play with the kids/pets/whatever, take time to actually enjoy life!
Some people undervalue themselves and need to learn their true value as precious individuals made in God's image. Some people overvalue themselves and need to learn to put others first. It's a question of achieving a healthy balance. Valuing myself correctly - not too little and not too much - means I can say: I deserve happiness just as much as everyone else, and everyone else deserves happiness just as much as I do.
the Ayn Rand quote had two parts - the first was about valuing yourself, the second was about fighting for your happiness. the first bit I have no problem with whatsoever.
in fact, I believe we humans go through a humungous amount of unnecessary suffering because we undervalue ourselves. and I believe one of the most important messages people need to hear is: you are precious, you were made in God's image, he loves you so much that he sent his son to die in your place - that's how precious you are, not just to some ordinary human but to the creator of the universe himself!
so, yes, value yourself. definitely. you are precious, significant, a unique individual with your own unique gifts and God regards you as precious.
but does that necessarily mean you should fight for your happiness, as Ayn Rand suggested? (I'm not going to try and unpick the thing in the American Declaration of Independence about a right to pursue your happiness - the whole issue of what we mean by "a right" and where we might get these "rights" from is a whole 'nother story. Not for now.)
Now, I need to slightly digress here and say: sometimes there's stuff we read which can be really valuable for a certain person because of where they're at right now, and for another person it could be useless, or even dangerous, because of where they're at. It's to do with the journey we've been through, the things we have struggled with, the things we have yet to learn, the emotional scars that still need healing, etc.
It's a bit like the "slow" signs on the roads. I remember in one of my driving lessons, driving through a rather bendy road where the speed limit was 60mph but I was a bit scared so I was probably doing 40, I came to a "slow" sign and my driving instructor saw me reach for the brake pedal and said: no, don't slow down, that sign is for people doing 60 and more.
So if someone has been doing 25 on the "pursuit of happiness" road then perhaps they do need encouragement to speed up a bit. Whereas for those who tend to go over the speed limit anyway, what is more helpful is a "slow" sign.
End of detour. Back to the matter in hand: pursuing happiness, fighting for your happiness - here are my jumbled thoughts.
My immediate reaction, seeing this quote on a Christian friend's blog, was: but how can you square fighting for your happiness with the call to seek first the kingdom of God, trusting that he will provide all that we need? or with that stuff Jesus said about taking up your cross and following him? not to mention being prepared to face persecution for your faith?
But on the other hand - didn't Jesus say he came so that we may have abundant life? and doesn't God love me and want me to be happy?
And then again - what is happiness anyway? and how would one go about pursuing it, or fighting for it? Doesn't happiness tend to find you in some very unexpected places, when you're busy doing other things, maybe even doing things for other people - when you've decided to take up your cross, to forgo your own happiness for the sake of others?
We've been told to love others as we love ourselves - which does kind of presuppose that we do love ourselves, and if I met someone who doesn't then I would start with that, I wouldn't start by preaching selflessness to them. This goes back to my earlier driving analogy. If a person is very egocentric then they need to learn to love others more, but if a person is a virtual doormat then they need to learn to value themselves more.
But assuming we've got that bit in place, the loving ourselves bit, then we are told to love others as we love ourselves - so pursuing my own happiness shouldn't be at the top of my agenda. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there at all - just that it shouldn't become more important than pursuing other people's happiness.
As a Christian, what should be at the top of my agenda? Loving God and loving others.
Jesus told us to seek first God's kingdom and trust that our Father knows what we need and will take care of us. So yes, God loves me and wants what's best for me, and knowing how much he values me, how precious I am to him, I can trust him to provide all that I need. (though not necessarily what I'd like and when I'd like it...) I don't think he wants me to put my efforts into chasing after happiness, I think he'd much rather I pursued his agenda and not mine, trusting in his love and faithfulness.
And of course if I love God, then doing his will is where I'll find true happiness.
But on the other hand... if a person has been overdoing the selfless sacrifice side of things, then it may be that God's message to them where they're at is: hey, loosen up a bit, you don't actually have a responsibility to fix the problems of everyone in the universe - that's my job. Stop working so hard. Go get an ice cream, take a walk in the park, play with the kids/pets/whatever, take time to actually enjoy life!
Some people undervalue themselves and need to learn their true value as precious individuals made in God's image. Some people overvalue themselves and need to learn to put others first. It's a question of achieving a healthy balance. Valuing myself correctly - not too little and not too much - means I can say: I deserve happiness just as much as everyone else, and everyone else deserves happiness just as much as I do.
17 Sept 2010
what about books I've dipped into
Shelfari is ok, it's fun to build your virtual bookshelf, post reviews when you finish reading a book (helps with remembering later what you thought at the time), browse through other people's bookshelves and read their reviews. And even discuss books with other people if you like. For book lovers this is great. But...
they have these options for each book:
I've read
I plan to read
I am reading
and what it missing for me there is:
I've dipped into
which in my case would cover a multitude of books. I have bookmarks inside about a zillion books. Not novels - with novels I start from the beginning and keep going till the end, the only exception being those very rare novels that I decide are not worth reading to the end so they get given away to a charity shop. But there are so many books I've got scattered around here which are of the non-fiction variety, whether it's Bill Bryson's Notes From a Small Island which I dip into every once in a while for some light entertainment, or counselling books such as Boundaries which I keep going back to every now and again, or Christian books, of which I've just picked up two off my shelf because I suddenly feel like looking at them after they've been sitting there for years - one of the Cover to Cover series, and Yancey's The Bible Jesus Read.
There was a stage when I was marking as "I'm reading now" every book I started reading. Then I decided that this was totally ridiculous, I'm not going to pretend to be reading now each and every book that I've stuck a bookmark in. I can't say I'm reading now the four I mentioned above plus - just glancing around the lounge right now: Tramp for the Lord, Captivating, Free to Fail, Personality and Prayer, and who knows what else...
no, not all books fit into that linear timeline. at least not the way I read them.
they have these options for each book:
I've read
I plan to read
I am reading
and what it missing for me there is:
I've dipped into
which in my case would cover a multitude of books. I have bookmarks inside about a zillion books. Not novels - with novels I start from the beginning and keep going till the end, the only exception being those very rare novels that I decide are not worth reading to the end so they get given away to a charity shop. But there are so many books I've got scattered around here which are of the non-fiction variety, whether it's Bill Bryson's Notes From a Small Island which I dip into every once in a while for some light entertainment, or counselling books such as Boundaries which I keep going back to every now and again, or Christian books, of which I've just picked up two off my shelf because I suddenly feel like looking at them after they've been sitting there for years - one of the Cover to Cover series, and Yancey's The Bible Jesus Read.
There was a stage when I was marking as "I'm reading now" every book I started reading. Then I decided that this was totally ridiculous, I'm not going to pretend to be reading now each and every book that I've stuck a bookmark in. I can't say I'm reading now the four I mentioned above plus - just glancing around the lounge right now: Tramp for the Lord, Captivating, Free to Fail, Personality and Prayer, and who knows what else...
no, not all books fit into that linear timeline. at least not the way I read them.
27 Aug 2010
"Until Jesus pays my salary..."
Got into an interesting discussion on my friend Gerry's Facebook page (yes, amazing, I know... but it does sometimes happen) on the subject of Religious Education at schools here in the UK, and one of his friends said:
My son... says that his RE teacher was told at parents eve that she should be converting the children to christianity (as they attend a C of E School) and her reply was 'until Jesus pays my salary I shall stick to the curriculum'
I didn't respond to this comment there, as I was already raising a whole load of controversy on another issue, but my mind keeps turning back to this - I see so many layers there, I have to try and unpick it.
My initial reaction was to the "until Jesus pays my salary" phrase - it makes me question to what extent exactly this woman regards Jesus as her Lord. It seems to imply: Jesus isn't my boss, the school pays my salary so I'll do what they tell me.
Of course, on the other hand, there are people who I think sometimes take it to the other extreme, and forget that their boss is actually paying their salary and has a say about what they do in their working hours.
I think there's a fine line there somewhere...
If someone pays you to do a certain job, yes, it is up to them (within reason and within the limits of what is legal) to say how they want it done. And if these terms are made explicit at the job application stage, you have the choice to take it or leave it - if something there goes against your conscience then you have the choice to say no, I can't do it.
But at the same time, you can't say 'Jesus is my Lord' but then leave him out of your work life. And if you believe that Jesus has commanded us to go and make disciples - can you really switch that off at work?
It is a tricky minefield in some work situations. I think that's why I didn't like that comment - because it made it sound like it's really clear cut, when I don't think it is. I think any Christian in paid employment has to work out how to balance their loyalties. I think that if your boss says, for example, that they forbid you from mentioning Jesus in your work time, then you have to adhere to that. If you're accepting their pay, you're agreeing to have them as your boss. But if your boss tells you to do something that is clearly immoral - I think at that point you have to say sorry, I can't do that because ultimately I am answerable to God first.
The question of evangelism is more tricky, there's a general command but obviously we don't do it all the time with each and every person we meet, so there may be specific situations where we say: in this situation I don't do this. (of course there's nothing to stop you praying for people in your own time.) There's an issue of how you use your boss's time - if he's paying for you to do a certain job between, say, 9-5 mondays to fridays, using that time to do something else would be stealing, which would not be honouring to God.
so, back to that RE teacher - if her contract says she is hired to teach children about the various religions and encouraging the children to think for themselves, not ramming a particular faith down their throats (which as far as I understand is the general idea of RE lessons in schools here) then I guess it would be inappropriate for her to stand in front of the class and preach the Gospel and issue an invitation to come forward and accept Jesus as your Lord and Saviour... (btw, another layer in this is that I bristle at the phrase 'converting the children to Christianity' because actually no human being converts another, all we can do is tell people about it and offer them the opportunity to become Christians if they choose to.)
so I guess I'm agreeing with her in disagreeing with the suggestion that she 'should be converting the children to Christianity' but I bristle at the way she phrased that disagreement, because it sounds to me like not a very respectful attitude towards Jesus.
and also because, ultimately, all good things come from him and the fact that she has a job and a salary is, ultimately, down to him. and because there are times when God calls people to risk their livelihood for him, trusting that he will keep providing somehow. and I'm here to testify to his faithfulness in such situations - as one who was told, back in 2001, to quit her job, and has not gone hungry since.
this reminds me of a conversation I had back in 1999 with the guy who was my vicar at the time, when I believed God was calling me to what is commonly referred to as 'full-time ministry' and my vicar said: and in what way are you not working for him full-time now?
14 Aug 2010
achievements come in different shapes and sizes
more thoughts from that earlier conversation about how I think I haven't got the single-mindedness necessary for writing a novel.
why is it that I tend to think as though writing a novel would be such an important achievement? why do I belittle the writing that I do, saying it's "just poems and short stories", as though these don't count for anything?
where do I get the idea that some achievements are more important than others - or is it just that deep down I still want human recognition, still want people to say: look at her, she did XYZ, wow!
I have lots of unfinished novels, plus an unfinished philosophy degree, two unfinished jumpers, at least one unfinished piece of cross-stitch embroidery, even a few unfinished blogs in draft form - though blogs I normally do finish, because I normally just write them in one sitting, not stopping till I press publish. it's the same with poems - I just write them in one sitting. and my short stories don't get finished unless I can finish them quickly, whilst I'm still full of enthusiasm about them.
I did complete the counselling course. I did, several years ago, complete a correspondence course in proofreading & copy-editing course - somehow I was determined to do it and I did it.
but do I really have to have these sorts of achievements to be able to say my life has some meaning? there are lots of other achievements, ones which you can't so easily put on your CV but which mean something to me, and which I believe mean something to God. he doesn't look at things in the same way as a potential employer who reads through your CV, nor in the same way that a typical Jewish mama would - God isn't looking to see how many academic qualifications you've got, how many prestigious jobs you've held, how many novels you've had published.
here's one of the things he looks at: how much love have you shown to other people?
I think it's since 1999 that I've had the clear conviction that God has called me to be a person who has time for people, who listens to people for real, with empathy and compassion. you can't do that if you're being single-minded about getting a novel written at all costs. (at least I can't.)
actually, there is a side of me that does get very task-focused, and it's when I'm being like that that I become incapable of showing much love to people. I become quite unpleasant, not very nice to be around at all. because all I'm seeing is the perceived need to get the job done, and I'm forgetting about the really important command to love others as I love myself. so maybe I do get the job done, and in human terms that can count as an achievement - but at what cost? if I hurt other people's feelings along the way, is it worth it?
there is a story Jesus told about someone who had been robbed and was lying helpless on the side of the road, and a priest walked past without stopping to help. was this priest so focused on getting to the Temple to perform his duties - getting the job done - that he wouldn't stop to show love and care for a fellow human being?
Lord, help me to look at life more and more through your value system and less and less through the world's. Help me to value your kinds of achievements more than those the world values, to place loving my neighbour higher than the sorts of things that would look good on my CV, the sorts of things that would do my Jewish mama proud. When the time comes for me to leave this temporary existence, let my obituary be one that would do you proud.
why is it that I tend to think as though writing a novel would be such an important achievement? why do I belittle the writing that I do, saying it's "just poems and short stories", as though these don't count for anything?
where do I get the idea that some achievements are more important than others - or is it just that deep down I still want human recognition, still want people to say: look at her, she did XYZ, wow!
I have lots of unfinished novels, plus an unfinished philosophy degree, two unfinished jumpers, at least one unfinished piece of cross-stitch embroidery, even a few unfinished blogs in draft form - though blogs I normally do finish, because I normally just write them in one sitting, not stopping till I press publish. it's the same with poems - I just write them in one sitting. and my short stories don't get finished unless I can finish them quickly, whilst I'm still full of enthusiasm about them.
I did complete the counselling course. I did, several years ago, complete a correspondence course in proofreading & copy-editing course - somehow I was determined to do it and I did it.
but do I really have to have these sorts of achievements to be able to say my life has some meaning? there are lots of other achievements, ones which you can't so easily put on your CV but which mean something to me, and which I believe mean something to God. he doesn't look at things in the same way as a potential employer who reads through your CV, nor in the same way that a typical Jewish mama would - God isn't looking to see how many academic qualifications you've got, how many prestigious jobs you've held, how many novels you've had published.
here's one of the things he looks at: how much love have you shown to other people?
I think it's since 1999 that I've had the clear conviction that God has called me to be a person who has time for people, who listens to people for real, with empathy and compassion. you can't do that if you're being single-minded about getting a novel written at all costs. (at least I can't.)
actually, there is a side of me that does get very task-focused, and it's when I'm being like that that I become incapable of showing much love to people. I become quite unpleasant, not very nice to be around at all. because all I'm seeing is the perceived need to get the job done, and I'm forgetting about the really important command to love others as I love myself. so maybe I do get the job done, and in human terms that can count as an achievement - but at what cost? if I hurt other people's feelings along the way, is it worth it?
there is a story Jesus told about someone who had been robbed and was lying helpless on the side of the road, and a priest walked past without stopping to help. was this priest so focused on getting to the Temple to perform his duties - getting the job done - that he wouldn't stop to show love and care for a fellow human being?
Lord, help me to look at life more and more through your value system and less and less through the world's. Help me to value your kinds of achievements more than those the world values, to place loving my neighbour higher than the sorts of things that would look good on my CV, the sorts of things that would do my Jewish mama proud. When the time comes for me to leave this temporary existence, let my obituary be one that would do you proud.
"I guess I shall never change"
was having a chat last night with a friend from the writing group who, it turns out, is like me in the tendency to flit from one thing to another and leave a lot of stuff unfinished. it all started from the jumper I'd found when sorting through stuff that had been lying in the cupboard under the stairs for years, a jumper I had actually got as far as very nearly finishing, I'd actually knitted the whole thing and started putting it together but I think this was when I was leaving the place where I'd been living and going elsewhere, and then a couple of months later I moved elsewhere again, and about a month later went back home to Israel, leaving a whole load of stuff in the loft of nice friends (including said unfinished jumper) and...
I digress. which kind of demonstrates this tendency, doesn't it? :)
the thing is, the unfinished jumper got us talking about how we are neither of us likely to ever finish a novel because we just don't have that single-mindedness, the perseverance, the ability to pick one project and focus on it for a length of time whilst forsaking all others. and caro ended up sighing and saying "I guess I shall never change" and I think we all do this, don't we, this sighing over the way we are and wishing we were different, sometimes beating ourselves over the head about it, as though we had a choice.
of course we do have choices in many areas, but we don't have a choice about what our personality is like, what our innate tendencies are, our strengths and weaknesses. I think the jury's out on how much of it is stuff we're born with and how much is to do with the way we were brought up (my instinct is very much in the "born with" direction) but whichever it is, it isn't anything we had a choice about - it's what we've been given, it's how we are.
not that we're necessarily static. some tendencies can go through subtle changes over time, and of course God can and does sometimes do stuff that we see as miraculous because it's outside of the normal way things work (though when I think about some of the plain ordinary stuff that goes on in God's creation, it seems pretty miraculous too, like when I watched a film of a baby being formed in the womb over time, or when I think about babies growing up and becoming grown people... but I'm digressing again)
so what was I trying to say? part of my journey over the past few years has been about learning to accept myself as I am. not to beat myself over the head, not to sigh about it too much. ok, so I don't have that single-mindedness that some people do, and those are the people more likely to churn out novels, whereas I have got as far as writing 14,000 words of a novel and then found something else to play with. but what if everyone was single-minded? to be quite honest, I don't think I'd find it all that nice to be married to someone like that - and I don't think my husband would either, so it's probably a blessing for our marriage that I'm not like that! there are pros and cons to all these things, and the world is so much richer for the variety of personality types that inhabit it.
the Bible talks in terms of different parts of one body: 'the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you"' - all different parts are necessary for the body to be whole and to function.
so if I'm a lower intestine there's no point in me sighing and thinking I wish I was a nose. there already are people assigned to the role of nose. I've got to do the job of being a lower intestine. (or whatever it is that I happen to be)
this is not to say that there's no room for change at all - of course there is, and part of my call as a Christian is to cooperate with God in his work of changing me more and more into the likeness of Jesus. (which, when looking at the starting point, is such a huge change that it seems unbelievable.) but I think the key is that it's about cooperating with what God is doing, not about my own ideas of how I'd like to be, nor about the pressure from other people or from society in general as to how I should be.
people can come at you with all sorts of pressure, they might have all sorts of ideas like "it's not good for you to spend too much time on your own" (which means they don't understand introverts) or "it's so much better to get up early in the morning" (which means they don't accept night-owls) or "clutter is unhealthy" (which means they don't understand my need, as a P, for things to not be too tidy), etc - so often people generalise from their own experience and assume that what works for them is going to work for everyone.
and we so easily internalise these messages, and accept that we should be different to how we are. but as long as God doesn't say there's something wrong with how I am, then all those people can go take a hike. and God doesn't say there's anything wrong with me being an INFP, or with someone else being an ESTJ, or whatever.
this reminds me of something I heard once, don't remember where now, about a dictionary of Pidgin English that translated the term "justification" into something like: God say he okay.
basically, God says I'm ok. he loves me as I am. yes, he's working on changing me into more like his son, more like how I was originally meant to be - human beings were originally made in God's image, and through Jesus he is restoring that image. but it's God who can see it all clearly and who knows exactly which bits need to be worked at, and he knows in what order things need to be done. and if anyone has the right to sigh over any aspect of my personality or behaviour, it's him.
I'm reminded of something from decades ago, probably when I was about 16 or so, a few friends chatting together and someone saying something to my friend Andra about how chubby she was, but she remained unfazed. how come? she had a new boyfriend, and was full of confidence because, she said, he liked her as she was.
of course having a fellow human being who likes you as you are is great for your self-esteem, but knowing that God loves me and likes me as I am - well, that takes it to a whole different league!
I digress. which kind of demonstrates this tendency, doesn't it? :)
the thing is, the unfinished jumper got us talking about how we are neither of us likely to ever finish a novel because we just don't have that single-mindedness, the perseverance, the ability to pick one project and focus on it for a length of time whilst forsaking all others. and caro ended up sighing and saying "I guess I shall never change" and I think we all do this, don't we, this sighing over the way we are and wishing we were different, sometimes beating ourselves over the head about it, as though we had a choice.
of course we do have choices in many areas, but we don't have a choice about what our personality is like, what our innate tendencies are, our strengths and weaknesses. I think the jury's out on how much of it is stuff we're born with and how much is to do with the way we were brought up (my instinct is very much in the "born with" direction) but whichever it is, it isn't anything we had a choice about - it's what we've been given, it's how we are.
not that we're necessarily static. some tendencies can go through subtle changes over time, and of course God can and does sometimes do stuff that we see as miraculous because it's outside of the normal way things work (though when I think about some of the plain ordinary stuff that goes on in God's creation, it seems pretty miraculous too, like when I watched a film of a baby being formed in the womb over time, or when I think about babies growing up and becoming grown people... but I'm digressing again)
so what was I trying to say? part of my journey over the past few years has been about learning to accept myself as I am. not to beat myself over the head, not to sigh about it too much. ok, so I don't have that single-mindedness that some people do, and those are the people more likely to churn out novels, whereas I have got as far as writing 14,000 words of a novel and then found something else to play with. but what if everyone was single-minded? to be quite honest, I don't think I'd find it all that nice to be married to someone like that - and I don't think my husband would either, so it's probably a blessing for our marriage that I'm not like that! there are pros and cons to all these things, and the world is so much richer for the variety of personality types that inhabit it.
the Bible talks in terms of different parts of one body: 'the eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you"' - all different parts are necessary for the body to be whole and to function.
so if I'm a lower intestine there's no point in me sighing and thinking I wish I was a nose. there already are people assigned to the role of nose. I've got to do the job of being a lower intestine. (or whatever it is that I happen to be)
this is not to say that there's no room for change at all - of course there is, and part of my call as a Christian is to cooperate with God in his work of changing me more and more into the likeness of Jesus. (which, when looking at the starting point, is such a huge change that it seems unbelievable.) but I think the key is that it's about cooperating with what God is doing, not about my own ideas of how I'd like to be, nor about the pressure from other people or from society in general as to how I should be.
people can come at you with all sorts of pressure, they might have all sorts of ideas like "it's not good for you to spend too much time on your own" (which means they don't understand introverts) or "it's so much better to get up early in the morning" (which means they don't accept night-owls) or "clutter is unhealthy" (which means they don't understand my need, as a P, for things to not be too tidy), etc - so often people generalise from their own experience and assume that what works for them is going to work for everyone.
and we so easily internalise these messages, and accept that we should be different to how we are. but as long as God doesn't say there's something wrong with how I am, then all those people can go take a hike. and God doesn't say there's anything wrong with me being an INFP, or with someone else being an ESTJ, or whatever.
this reminds me of something I heard once, don't remember where now, about a dictionary of Pidgin English that translated the term "justification" into something like: God say he okay.
basically, God says I'm ok. he loves me as I am. yes, he's working on changing me into more like his son, more like how I was originally meant to be - human beings were originally made in God's image, and through Jesus he is restoring that image. but it's God who can see it all clearly and who knows exactly which bits need to be worked at, and he knows in what order things need to be done. and if anyone has the right to sigh over any aspect of my personality or behaviour, it's him.
I'm reminded of something from decades ago, probably when I was about 16 or so, a few friends chatting together and someone saying something to my friend Andra about how chubby she was, but she remained unfazed. how come? she had a new boyfriend, and was full of confidence because, she said, he liked her as she was.
of course having a fellow human being who likes you as you are is great for your self-esteem, but knowing that God loves me and likes me as I am - well, that takes it to a whole different league!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)