I just read an article that outlined ways for men to be better “allies” of women. There were many useful ideas. Among them though, was the suggestion that men not be “paternalistic” for fear of communicating to women that they are being perceived as incapable of handling static. For purposes of this discussion, I will ignore that we cherish women who are maternalistic, which is rooted squarely in their gender and is clearly a bias. I will ignore the fundamental assumptions associated with alimony which disproportionately impacts men, even when they are financially worse off than their female partners; or that the amount is not calculated on need, but is based on what he can “afford”. I will ignore many points inconvenient to the opposition; or as in the instance of chivalry, points that at a minimum complicate their stance, given that chivalry is predicated exclusively on gender bias. Instead, let’s focus on paternalism and the associated “why”.

I have had numerous disagreements with independent female friends and associates over time because they felt as if I was encroaching. For example, I may have suggested that she take out her keys well before getting to the front door, or that she be aware of her surroundings and people in the vicinity, or that she take a firmer stance on a matter. I was never impolite in the communication of these thoughts, though I may have hinted at impatience when the reminders continued to go unheeded. I always acted with conviction and I even do this with my own mother. My conviction is that women need to be more aware of their safety than men do, because they are at greater risk, all things being equal. It is fair to conclude that men are less likely to try to bully another man or pull the wool over his eyes than they would a woman. If women think that’s sexist, I wonder how many of them truly think that they can bench more than the guys they know, or run faster, or throw further and harder. Yes, it is that simple, as I will explain in what I refer to as the “civility assumption”.

It would be a lot harder to physically take advantage of me and many of the guys I know than it would be to accost and physically control many of the women I know. How about the men and women you know? Most women are not stronger than their rapist attackers, for example. Given that most attacks are more than just an overzealous attempt at engaging in a spirited debate between the sexes, the major flaw that plagues these articles and the comprehensiveness of “gender equality” is the presumption of civil mindedness in handling uncivil behavior. Women, well-intentioned, strong, smart, and competent as they may be, are feeding into and fueling this when they skew beyond the point of gender balance, or even presume gender equality in ALL things. To presume or promote the unwarranted assumption that spiritual and intellectual equality translates into, or should be lumped together with physical equality, is an egregious error. We have this problem because we are fortunate enough to live in a civilized environment. For all of its flaws and exceptions, civility is in fact the mainstay of our society. Therefore, it is easy to presume that we are all on an equal footing, because we forget that men used to have to kill and build things. It is easy to conflate what ought to be and what is. This is the crux of the issue. We reside in a world of civility, but are subject to indiscriminate and unpredictable acts of incivility. They are the exception, which is why reality is easy to forget, but they are devastating when experienced. Adding to the trauma of the event is the reminder that victims tends to be more physically weak, and that does not comport with a woman’s ideas of mental and emotional equality. However, crime does not generally roost within refined spaces governed by words and an exchange of ideas, it is overwhelmingly physical.

Women who frequently experience or witness violence are not deluded in this way, they can see the differences quite clearly. Their complaint is often in the pursuit of intellectual and spiritual equality, for example, in the defense of the right to go to school. They should be able to go to school, and make the same money for the same work; but they understand why the men who care about them hover and remind and prod them to be safe and do things in a certain way. The smart ones don’t need to be reminded. Nor do the ones who’ve been made victims. The “sexist assumption” does not reside with me and others like me, it resides with the rapists and burglars who are more likely to prey on women. It resides with men who are more likely to mislead, trick, and defraud women. It resides in people who ignore realities, and inconveniences like case studies and statistics., and that includes other women. The entire debate may be crystalized into two questions, which is really the inverse of one: As a woman under attack, would you rather be defended by a strong man or a strong woman? Would you rather be attacked by a strong man or a women? Through many elements of paternalism, women have found allies.

Generally the litmus test of a good decision is to determine whether or not you would do anything about it differently, were you to have the opportunity. If you would change nothing, you probably made a good decision (pride and ego notwithstanding).

In thinking through the last year, there are one or two things of note that I’d do differently. That I would do it differently, however, doesn’t mean that I would have done it correctly or been correct in doing it.

That I would do things differently only indicates that there are questions to which I will probably never have the answer, but about which I remain curious. So curious in fact, that had I had the chance to redo them, I would.

There is no regret as there would be had a bad decision been made, because there is little proof that the decisions made were bad. In fact, they may have been best of the options.

My struggle is with settling on the decision, and “settling for” the options. Perhaps this year, I will give myself, and be fortunate enough to receive, more options. There must be a balance between assessing to learn, assessing for sport, and forgetting about things all together. Naturally, that’s easier said than done.

The Top 10 Arts Stories Of 2013
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/28/top-art-stories-2013_n_4476306.html

In addition to other things, I had a slice of pepperoni pizza for lunch today, my first in months. It came to my attention via a picture that was sent to me and subsequent texts, that a number of people whom I know very loosely had also had pepperoni pizza for lunch. In response, I was initially tempted to say that “great minds think alike”, but then it seemed as pointless to me as calling a person and leaving them a voicemail that simply says “Hey, this is me. Call me back when you have a chance.”; especially since I would rather receive a text. That is another blog for another time. Lo and behold, a text that I received in response to my own pepperoni revelation contained the “great minds” phrase (this is in and of itself was perhaps a pandora’s box of proof – from pepperoni to recap). In fact, it is such an accessible phrase, that that is literally all the text said: “Great minds.” But what about them?

Great minds tend to parse information, creating mash-ups of perspectives granular, even in the present, which are also partnered with other pieces of information gathered over time and forecasted. This information gathering is not only specific, focused, and granular; it is also broad and deep; far AND wide. It is massive in scale. Given that “mass”, given the almost infinite expanse of several such minds, great minds; what is the probability that they are thinking alike? Surely lots of great minds are occasionally fueled by pepperoni pizza; but so are many weak minds, perhaps more often. Naturally, this all extends beyond pizza. What does this phrase really mean? What could it mean, especially when followed by “..fools seldom differ”?

I looked it up, and it is attributed to no one in particular. Half-fullists might say that it is attributed to the particularly prolific and omni-present scholar and philosopher, “Anonymous”. In any event, how great was the mind that stumbled upon this phrase? Was it a mind that wrung itself dry in the creation, or was it dripping with excess? How many clever people want to be lumped with others? This phrase strikes me as more aspirational than collegial. Perhaps I will never say it again, lest I be judged too harshly. Perhaps I will simply enjoy the mental stimulation, then promptly forget all about it as I continue the lifelong search for my next meal.. and of course, the next similarity.

I’m back from the Bahamas as of yesterday, where I enjoyed excellent weather and interactions with friends and family. Sadly, in specific reference to wishing that I was still in the Bahamas, yet happily in general, I am on my way to work.

Most mornings, I stop at a pretty well appointed bodega by Yankee stadium for breakfast. A few weeks ago, I was at the register and needed 25 cents more, and started looking for a quarter. I simply didn’t want to break a dollar and have more change as dregs. It took a few seconds, and as I was rummaging, a guy behind me put a quarter in the counter and very pleasantly said, “Here you go.” He didn’t do it in an annoyed manner that suggested “It will cost me only 25 cents to get you out of my way”. He was really pleasant about it. For as small of an amount and simple of a gesture, it meant a lot and was a big surprise. I kind of felt silly at the time for how much I thanked him.

When I saw him this morning, which was easy because we were the only two customers in the place the day after Christmas, I decided to return the kindness by buying his breakfast. I would have preferred to simply pay for it “anonymously” and get moving, but this is still New York. I had to make sure that I was getting charged for the right thing and that he wouldn’t also be charged after I left, so I found out what he was having and let him know I was paying for it. It cost only a few dollars, but it felt nice and everybody won.

The point of this is certainly not to draw attention to myself, the point is that in the smallest way, you can move someone meaningfully. When I left, I simply said “Have a nice day.” He replied, “I will, it’s already off to a great start.”

Spread love.

“I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.” – Duck Dynasty Star

The Duck Dynasty controversy is overblown and has been whittled down to a specific agenda to the exclusion of others. Included along with what has been labeled as homophobic comments, were also racially insensitive ones. Probably even outright lies. Perhaps it is possible that he never saw ANY black people being mistreated in Louisiana decades ago before basic human rights were afforded to minorities, when mistreatment was likely to have occurred everywhere, daily. The likelihood of that, however, seems de minimus. “Not once”?? Not even in a place that is still in the middle of the biggest racial hotbed in the United States. YET, I have yet to hear any criticism of these comments, only complaints from gay advocates. The implication is that black people, at least the black people of today, are; entitled, whiney (singing the blues), and ungodly. Or perhaps the implication is that the black people of yesteryear, knew their place, were complacent, servile, and simple (they also sand “the blues” just to be clear).  To be fair, he is also engaging in self-deprecation, even if through the implied association with black people. In any event, how is this not worse than his other comments about gays? Where is the “outrage”, assuming that any is warranted at all?

Furthermore, his beliefs as stated, appear to be consistent with what most Christians believe, so an attack on him for what has been said is more about a disagreement with the principles of that religion. And many others. Additionally, there are tons of men and women alike, religious and not, who do not understand homosexual attractions when compared to their own. That itself does not make this a broader issue, because a lack of understanding does not necessarily mean “fear” or “intolerance”, certainly not necessarily “hatred”. He doesn’t strike me as the kind of guy with whom I would want to spend much time, and I have never even seen the show; but let’s put things in proper and reasonable perspective as opposed to the knee jerk, limitless outrage that feeds into the parasitic 15 minutes of fame that is all too prevalent on issues and non-issues alike. 

Here is an article written by my friend and fellow University of Denver alum, Alanna Kaivalya excoriating Lululemon. I believe that a number of her points comport with the idea behind my blog from a couple weeks ago “Massaging Our Social Consciousness”. Her article goes beyond that though, and I found it to be thoughtful and the tone conversational.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alanna-kaivalya/chip-wilson-can-kiss-my-f_b_4415790.html

I may have just been introduced to my new favorite poem this morning, courtesy of this article about the first known letter written by a black inmate in the US. The story of Austin Reed and the poem are both great reads.

http://www.luminarium.org/eightlit/cowper/morningdream.htm

Last night my buddy Rich saved the day. What had been a decent day at work was followed by packing for an upcoming trip. The sun had long since set and it promised to be as uneventful a night as the ones before it, but in gallops Rich, riding high on a winged creature, heralding some unexpected and exciting news. It came at almost literally the eleventh hour. The annual Victoria’s Secret fashion show would be on at 10, Channel 2. To have missed it would have been awful; not actively so, but in the omission. The fact that I’d only ever seen one previous show years ago that I can’t remember, and never bothered to plan for future ones, is beside the point because now I’m friends with Victoria’s Secret Oracle, Rich.

One of my favorite parts of the hour-long winged prophecy and unveiling, came with the performance of A Great Big World’s “Say Something”. I had never heard it before, but I am listening to it as I pen these words of gratitude; yet, foreboding. The pianist and singer’s voice was appropriately angelic, his words filled with melancholy and longing. Perhaps ironically, though perhaps not at all, he poured his bruised heart out as some of the world’s most famous models strut and swiveled their scarcely concealed bodies and glee. Perhaps it was a joi de vivre that is painted and pinned on, but it’s convincing enough at the moment. The thought that it would have to be fabricated and attached, makes this sorrowful song bird begging her to “say something” lest he give up entirely, all the more pitiable. If even she is sad, what could she possibly want? What could possibly be done, and by a guy like him? How much greater the gulf
between his longing and his dismal reality? I got a glimpse of this at the end of the show backstage when a brunette model seems to have forgotten her smile onstage, and that the cameras were still rolling. That look, followed by her startled realization and the camera cutting away, was the Nephilim bridging heaven and earth.

This song served as an amazing contrast between the worlds. A reference to “stumbling and falling” in the song was punctuated by the certainty with which the models moved. It was a figurative slap across the face, with clicking heels softened only by flapping wings. The wings sometimes seemed more substantial than the angels themselves, giving the illusion of lightening their load. The crooner soldiered on as the angels glided unabated along the sliver of runway, through heaven’s gates with all the confidence of belonging, hardly paying attention to him at all. As if to acknowledge his and the world’s longing, one model ran her fingers across the top of the piano, emphasizing her fleeting presence and unattainability. His eyes cast down upon feet and ivory, perhaps blurry with wet emotion, he could not have been expected to notice. I don’t know that any song or scene could have been more perfect. Winners and losers, their bridges and broken bonds, were thoroughly and lastingly represented by those with wings and without.