Tis Better

I read a lot, which isn't truly surprising. Currently, I'm actively reading three books but I think I have bookmarks in around five. A few years ago, I stumbled upon a book called The Patron Saint of Liars by Ann Patchett. The synopsis sounded good so I bought it. It was just as good as it had promised to be. I suggest you all read it.

Near the end, one of the main characters, Cecilia, says


I wanted to sit down in the middle of the road and stay there for the rest of my life. Whenever someone came by and said, Hey, Cecilia, what're you doing there in the road, I'd tell them, missing people was a full-time job, being sorry about what was gone was going to take every waking minute now, so much time and energy that I had no choice but to stay right on that spot until they all decided to come back.


That quote has stuck with me. When I miss people, I want to sit down and let the world turn around me. "Missing people is a full-time job." It takes all your energy just to continue to breath without them and any other form of action is unthinkable. I couldn't do that forever, but I could for a while. And it isn't just missing people who have died, although they are included. It is missing people who are far away, who you are used to having near you. After a time though, I realize, like Cecilia, "I couldn't wait for them. They weren't coming back." It is impossible to regain what has been lost. Trying to regain it will only lead to more heartache.

There is another quote I've found from Liars I quite like as well, "People die, terrible things happen. I know this now. You can't pick up and leave everything behind because there is too much sadness in the world and not enough places to go." Grief is inescapable. We carry it with us, as much as we carry happiness.

And that is the trouble with grief. Even if we are grieving for people who are still alive but far away rather than dead. The sorrow is always there, just waiting in the wings for some little thing to cue it's entrance. And then the world stops. You are incapable of moving, of speaking, of doing anything other than sit down and cry for what was. And not just tears, but shuddering breaths and body-wracking sobs, like a tidal wave on dry land. You think you've moved through the stages of grief to acceptance.

After you accept loss, after denial, anger, bargaining, and depression, what then? You accept, but what do you do with the gaping wound in your chest? Knowing despite the pain, you wouldn't trade a minute spent with those you miss for anything.

I wish I knew what to do in the face of missing people. But I don't. All I know is the world keeps turning, the sun will rise tomorrow, the grand narrative of humanity does not care about our intrapersonal turmoil. The best thing to do is keep living, and if that means sometimes just stopping to miss people, I guess I'm OK with that.

It Takes All Kinds

One of my mom's sayings is "it takes all kinds". I don't know if it's one of her favorites, but it probably is. The point of the saying is that in order for society to function, we need all sorts of people--even the ones we dislike or disagree with. No one person is better than any other, and it is necessary to understand that.

There are many personality types, and various metrics. One of the most often used is introvert/extrovert. Another is the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in which introvert/extrovert is included. There are 16 personality types in the MBTI. The Keirsey Temperament Sorter is similar but more focused on behavior and temperament. The different sets of 16 personality types correlate to each other but are not synonymous.

I am an INFP, although depending on when I take the test, and which free online version, can change a bit. Although I am always IN. INFP stands for introversion, intuition, feeling, perception and is classified as "Healer" in the Keirsey Sorter. Focused internally and on the abstract rather than on social situations and specifics.

I am sharing this because I've written a post about grief and loss and my personality demands I clarify writing something I rarely vocalize. I often find it difficult to put ideas into spoken words. I communicate difficult ideas better on paper (or screen), when I have time to think about what I am saying, my word choice, and how I connect ideas. Meaning is difficult to vocalize. I get frustrated when the spoken word is not enough to convey what I see in my mind.

Think about it like this: when you have a song stuck in your head, like a symphony, or film score, or any acapella song, you hear all the different melodies and harmonies in your head, but, once you find yourself singing aloud, you are reduced to one line. And only being able to vocalize one line out of many diminishes the song. Think the "1812 Overture" without the cannons. Or "Hedwig's Theme" from Harry Potter without the string section. Or most of Straight No Chaser's "Twelve Days of Christmas".

Or think about it like this: have you ever tried to take a picture of a sunset? Or a lake? Or the ocean? Or the moon? It never turns out like you see it. It lacks detail and precision. The camera is a machine and can never fully capture what we see. I take a picture of the moon, wanting to send it to you. But it turns out a spot of light in the dark. Able to communicate light in the dark, but not "Isn't this beautiful. I saw it and thought of you. I hope you're well. I wish you were here."

It is like a joke or story that "you had to be there" to find funny.

What I see or feel, I cannot adequately speak. I leave words to others, who are more suited to it than I. I hope this makes sense. But I am one kind: you are another. We need each other.

It's About the People

Today's topic is humanism. I've mentioned it a bit in passing and have decided it needs its own post. Other than quotes and definitions, the ideas are my interpretations. I'm focusing on secular humanism, which is based in Enlightenment and free-thought ideas, rather than any of a number of other specific versions of humanism. Although, like all belief systems, humanism changes depending on who you ask. And it is definitely something I suggest looking more into.

According to the definition on Google, humanism is:


An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.


Humanism is people centric. There is no deity or higher power. No clockmaker god. Nothing. But that is not to say humanism rejects the divine or supernatural. Religion has its purpose and gives people something to believe in. Everyone needs something to believe in. Humanists believe in people: "I have known many good people who did not believe in God. But I have never known a human being who was good who did not believe in people" (John Lovejoy Elliott).

In many ways, a belief in humanism makes many discussions of religion redundant. What people believe in is less important than what they do. In one of my college classes, Religion in American Life, we discussed this topic. What people believe is not as important as what that belief makes them do. "Life has no meaning a priori...It is up to you to give it a meaning, and value is nothing but the meaning that you choose" (Jean-Paul Sartre).

I've written before about finding comfort being small in the enormity of the universe. Although alone, I am still connected to humanity.

Humanism "requires an affirmative philosophy...translated into a life devoted to one's own improvements and the service of all mankind" (Corliss Lamont). The aim is to make life "better" for everybody. The idea that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is close to that idea. The phrase tends to refer only to economic situations, and even then it's validity is questionable. In humanism, the aim is to lift the boats of all people, in every situation, in every way possible.

The quote I'm going to close with is about faith in different things. I want you all to understand, I know religion is very helpful for many people, including myself, but it has also caused an enormous amount of harm to many people as well. I don't want to diminish any belief system, we each need one. And so, as Joss Whedon said, "Faith in God means believing absolutely in something with no proof whatsoever. Faith in humanity means believing absolutely in something with a huge amount of proof to the contrary."

Hearing and Listening

One of my favorite quotes is, "I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant" (Alan Greenspan). It is truly amazing how often this happens. It's like that game "Telephone", where you pass a whispered phrase around a circle and see how close the end result is.

Sometimes, the translation happens because you are saying something to someone who isn't familiar with you. Communicating with strangers is hard because we each have our own specific vernacular. Add in regional pronunciation and vernacular, and sometimes communication is neigh impossible.

Sometimes, you can't articulate your thoughts. This happens to me a lot. And it is very frustrating. Trying to say something, or explain a thought, but not being understood. Knowing the scaffolding behind a statement, but not being able to explain the structure. Referencing a past event, or a piece of information, but not conveying it well.

I don't think anybody responds well to this kind of misunderstanding. I know I don't. I get frustrated easily and when I meet the barrier of understanding, too often I just stop trying. Which is obviously unhelpful. My problem, I think, is that I think what I'm saying, and how it should be understood, is obvious and if the person I'm speaking with doesn't get it, they are doing it on purpose. They aren't most of the time.

That's the difference between hearing and listening. When you simply "hear" what someone says, there is more room for misunderstanding. "I'm hearing you" can mean "I see your point of view and understand it but" or "I hear you making noise in the form of words but". "Listening", I find, has less misinterpretation. If you actually listen to what someone is saying and understand what isn't said, their meaning is clearer.

Listening takes patience and is hard, but it is a worthy endeavor. We have to understand what people are saying and what they mean and why they are saying that. We need to actually care about each other, instead of merely waiting until it is our turn to speak again.

Non-Classical Poetry, Part 4 Update

So, a while ago, I wrote a post on the poem 'Dear Woman'. I love it as you may remember. Today, I saw the picture of the page in the book I linked to again, this time with the author's name: Michael Reid. It is part of a larger book called Dear Woman. I wanted to update you all on this. I hope to read more of his work at some point.

American Sisyphus

The other day, I was watching segments from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver. One of the most recent ones is on paid family leave. Like many of the segments, I knew a bit of the subject matter before watching, but Oliver puts topics in such stark terms, my understanding of the situation is clarified. In this case, I knew the state of paid family leave in the US is dismal but, wow.

Often working moms are criticized for not spending enough time with their kids. As the child of a working mother, this is nonsense. There are probably some moms who don't or can't balance time well and my mom made us her priority. But, some working moms can't spend as much time with their kids, because, sometimes, the choice is financial. When choosing between spending time with your kid and earning money so that kid can eat, be clothed, and have a home, there is no choice. Just a terrible situation.

The situation is even worse for new moms. The only two countries in the world that do not guarantee paid time off for new mothers are the United States and Papua New Guinea. That's it. Just the two. In the whole world. Yes, some offer more than others. Yes, I'm sure there are other considerations. But there is at least some legal provision guaranteeing paid maternity leave.

The only federal provision in the US is the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. According to the Department of Labor fact sheet:


The FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to take unpaid, job-protected leave for specified family and medical reasons with continuation of group health insurance coverage under the same terms and conditions as if the employee had not taken leave. Eligible employees are entitled to:

Twelve workweeks of leave in a 12-month period for:
the birth of a child and to care for the newborn child within one year of birth...


There are other state-level laws, but all the laws combine don't cover 40% of the women in the workforce. Temporary employees or contractors and part-time employees who qualify for insurance don't receive any guarantees. The women most impacted by this situation are minority women who are already socially and economically disadvantaged.

For as much as people profess to love mothers, they sure don't act like it, especially legislators. And this isn't like the issue of maternity/paternity/family leave in the US is new. This is a continuing failure. But, apparently, this is a "do as I say and not as I do" situation. We should love our mothers, and all mothers, but not actually do anything to show that we care for them or want them to thrive.

I think what is truly disappointing about this is that the lack of guaranteed family leave in the US is not even surprising to me. As I have become increasingly aware, women are still second-class citizens in this country. So, abhorrent treatment of women across the board is unsurprising. "Land of opportunity" they tell us. Without telling us about the terms and conditions: if you are anything less than a straight white male, you might as well be Sisyphus.



Sources:
http://www.dol.gov/whd/fmla/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/11/john-oliver-mothers_n_7254924.html

Grace in Failing

You have probably realized by now I like to write about things that make me excited, especially when I don't have any real life stories to share. (And I've have a lack of those and pictures to share recently.) Today, however, I am torn. I have two blogs I could write, and I might write both. Actually, I probably will. My dilemma: writing about the new Avengers film or about paid family leave: Superhero movie vs. actual societal problem. Let's go with Avengers.

Avengers: Age of Ultron is currently the biggest movie in America, and I think the world. I saw it over the weekend. I loved it. And, yes, there were problems. But it was still good. Marvel and Joss Whedon have been catching a lot of flack for some of those faults. And yes, there are legitimate criticisms. The lack of Black Widow merchandise for one. It's sad that I now am more surprised when I see Black Widow on the plethora of Avengers products than when I don't. And honestly, she's probably the best. Also, where is my Black Widow movie?

I'm going to try to avoid spoilers, so I am going to avoid some of the more controversial parts of the movie, but, suffice to say, I think a complex view, thorough understanding of the characters is needed and simply condemning the entire franchise, and every one who is a part of it, is wrong and unfair. I'm not apologizing for a lack of female characters, just that we shouldn't be so quick to judge.

I loved the music. What makes a movie, most often for me, is the music. There were a lot of musical callbacks to earlier Marvel films which help tie the universe together. I also liked the cinematography. And the dialogue.

There are a few lines that stand out. One of my favorites in these movies is Captain America/Steve Rogers. In the first Captain America movie, he says, "I don't like bullies; I don't care where they're from." Which, honestly, is a fantastic line. In this film, he says, "Every time someone tries to stop a war before it starts, innocent people die. Every time." Again, fantastic. We get to see a superhero who cares about collateral damage and he is not OK with it. Captain America is an idealist who only knows war. He knows that to win battles, teamwork is necessary, which everyone but Stark seems to mostly get. Rogers knows the Avengers need to prove themselves. This is why, I believe, early in the movie Thor's hammer almost moves for him--he is almost worthy.

One of the other lines I love is said late in the movie, in one of the final confrontations:


"Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings. I think you missed that."
"They're doomed!"
"Yes... but a thing isn't beautiful because it lasts..."


Many times in life we try to hold onto things we love and find beautiful; we try to order our lives to make sense of the chaos of the universe. Change needs to be accepted although it is hard. I admit, I am not very good with change. Disorder is difficult. Honestly. Life is hard but that doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. The idea of grace in failing calls to a humanist understanding of the world. E. O. Wilson said, "If those committed to the quest fail, they will be forgiven. When lost, they will find another way. The moral imperative of humanism is the endeavor alone, whether successful or not, provided the effort is honorable and failure memorable."

Avengers: Age of Ultron is about superheroes regaining their humanity. While there are explosions and fights, there is also a battle raging for their souls. And, when they've won the physical battle--war really--against the villain, they still are fighting for their souls, their humanity.


******Spoiler Alert*********


I wanted to include this earlier, but, you know, spoiler alert. While Thor's hammer moves slightly for Steve Rogers, The Vision is able to  pick it up. Although young, he can lift the hammer because he believes in humanity and finds grace in failure. This may also be the case for Rogers, and maybe he can lift the hammer as well. I don't know, I've not thought most of this through past this point.

Drowning in a Sea of Pink

In one of my high school English classes we discussed the difference between "connotation" and "denotation". Denotation being the dictionary definition of a word--what something actually means. ("Actually" here being used with the understanding that all meaning is created.) Connotation being the ideas or feelings associated with a word. For example, pink.

Pink, by definition, is the color between red and white. But pink has many connotations. According to the dictionary on my computer's dashboard, "pink" as an adjective can also mean, in a derogatory sense, "having or showing left-wing tendencies"; or "associated with homosexuals" (which I will get to later); or, historically, a type of ship.

Escaping my dashboard dictionary, "pink" in society often equals "girl". It hasn't always been that way. Until the late 1940s, the "rules" for color associations and babies were fluid. Pink being cited as "more manly" was for boys and blue "associated with girls since the Virgin Mary is customarily dressed in blue." Whatever the reasons, the current color situation didn't appear until after the Second World War.

Once article I found states,


Regardless of the original connotations of the two colors, it's clear that they've now reversed their earlier meanings and that pink is much more associated with girls now, and vice versa for blue. There have been some studies that suggest that women just "naturally" like pink better, and that blue is a color that men prefer innately. Other suggest that the now current color consensus, which appears to have materialized int he 1950s, came from the Nazis branded gays with pink triangles in their concentration camps.


Not to say that is a perfect quote, but it works. I feel confident is forwarding the theory that pink is associated with girls because of a choice made by Hitler. Now, I'm not saying the current gendered color situation is directly caused by Hitler, but it cannot be coincidental either.

Which brings me to my point: pink being solely associated with girls and many products aimed at girls and women being available only in pink is stupid.

I've been working at a local Target to earn some money while I figure out what I'm doing with my life, and I work in the clothing section most of the time. Until I started, I did not understand how much of the baby stuff and toddler/kids clothing was gendered. The amount of pink in the girls sections is sickening. (There are other colors available, but only in pastels.) Perhaps the "pink product" that is the worst, is the pink nasal aspirator. In the same section, there are other basic baby care tools that also come in pink. The originals are white. The pink versions are all more expensive, another point I will return to.

The other day, a co-worker and I were working in the baby section and talking about the amount of pink, specifically pink bottles. I held that it was stupid for basic baby products to be gendered like that. She said that people want the gender of their baby to be obvious to others. First, what business is it of anyone else the gender of a stranger's baby. Second, why does it matter?

Answer: it shouldn't, but, disgustingly, it does. Society trains us to think pink=girls. Limiting girls to almost a single choice, although that is slowly changing, diminishes them and strengthens the status quo.

Pink products are not limited to girls either. There are pink products for women too: razors, ear plugs, shoes, bicycles, and many other everyday products. Perhaps the two most astonishing, to me, are pink guns (like it matters the color of the thing you're using to shoot bullets) and pink pens. Yes, pink pens. Because women need special pens.

This trend is economically discriminatory as well. Women's products cost more across the board--known as the Pink Tax. Other than in California, which banned gender-discriminatory pricing in 1995, women's products cost more. (At least in the US, but I'm sure the same holds true across most of the Western World.) And it's not just lotion and deodorant. It's dry cleaning and health insurance; the latter because women tend to live longer than men. Remember that nasal aspirator? 2 cents more expensive than the gender neutral white one. That may seem like nothing, but it is indicative of the larger problem. Women are charged more and are paid less.

My last point, and the catalyst for this post, is the use of pink as the color for breast cancer. And I get it, most cancers have colors associated with them for awareness, and even other illnesses. But, the most associated, known, whatever, one is pink for breast cancer. And the name most tied to that association is the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for more cancer awareness and prevention measures. I just don't think having pink ribbons everywhere is helpful anymore. Or professional athletes, almost all of them men, wearing pink shoes or socks or jerseys is raising awareness.

Last night, I was watching a baseball game. And for Mother's Day (a completely made-up commercial holiday) the players were wearing pink, all to support breast cancer awareness.

On this topic I have two points. First, this kind of "pinkwashing" isn't helpful. Companies can that make products or deal in products that increase the risk of cancer in everyone can buy good public opinion by donating money from some pink product. It is stupid and unhelpful. A gesture meant to make people feel good without doing any actual good. Instead of making a specialty product, why not stop fracking?

Second, many of the breast cancer awareness campaigns are based on "Save the Ta-Tas" or "Save Third Base"--statements which are incredibly harmful. They focus on breasts, and only sexualized breasts, instead of women. It is offensive. The logical trend from "pink" to "women" to "breast" to "object" is distressing. As they have been for centuries, women and their bodies are commodities to be bought and sold.

If you have read this entire post, thank you. And now, I ask one more thing: when confronted with the choice between a gendered product and a non-gendered product, choose the latter. There is the theory that products are only made because people buy them. Conscientious consumerism is hard but anything worth doing is hard and this is possibly the only way to effect change.

Sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/?all

http://forgottenhistoryblog.com/pink-wasnt-always-considered-a-feminine-color-and-blue-wasnt-always-masculine/

http://www.businessinsider.com/womens-products-more-expensive-than-mens-2015-4

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/10/21/komen-is-supposed-to-be-curing-breast-cancer-so-why-is-its-pink-ribbon-on-so-many-carcinogenic-products/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessica-s-holmes/breast-cancer-awareness_b_1988050.html