A disclaimer: Please know that once I write something--it is out--there is no reason to worry that it might really happen because the thoughts are gone once they hit the paper.
While driving to pick up the kids from school to day, I felt nearly suicidal--to the point that I pondered the idea of driving off into the ditch and wrecking the car. There were telephone poles or trees that could be hit. The ditch was deeper in some parts. How much damage would I do to the car and myself, I wondered. Of course, all of those considerations happened in the less than a minute it took to go from the stop sign at Elder Creek to half-way to Fruitridge.
Every year my husband and I have the same disagreements over buying things. Every year I get called a scrooge. Every year, I find no joy in giving.
I remember when I was a kid watching Eight is Enough. It was a Christmas episode. The mom had died, so the dad and kids were trying to get used to life without her and he had the new younger girlfriend "Abby." All that aside, what was really cool about that episode was the idea of gift giving. Apparently the mom would shop throughout the year to get one very special meaningful gift for each child--she would put great thought into it. She would buy these, wrap them, and hide them somewhere for a long wait until Christmas. The episode ended with the "touching" story that she had only had time to buy a gift for Tommy that year. But I just thought the idea of actually getting something special and taking the time to get it was cool. It makes for more meaningful gift giving that randomly scrambling at the last minute after school lets out and before Christmas arrives.
I've calmed down since I began the post, but I'm still a fucking scrooge. Scrooge is afterall the one who has to, through self reflection, rediscover the meaning of Christmas and giving.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
Intelligence and our society
I was reading an internet article yesterday that was reviewing some study that found vegetarians had higher IQs than ominvores. As a vegetarian I was curious and read the article to find out that this 8-10 point IQ difference was only found in England, not the U.S. and the IQ was measured when the subjects were children. So I began wondering why our society has such a static view of intelligence.
People claim that the IQ tests actually measure intelligence, but they really only measure a certain kind of intelligence, and they certainly don't work for all kinds of people. Yet, we still continue to view them as some definitive measure of a person's intellectual value. I think about my childhood and how I was tested multiple times for the gifted program before I got in. Suddenly my IQ was high enough. What about me had changed? Had I suddenly learned how to take the tests?
I also think about how the experiences we have in life changed me and expanded my ways of thinking. Is that intelligence or wisdom? What is the difference?
I guess what it comes down to is that someone in our society has decided that once you're labeled as intellgent or less intelligent that's it you're stuck with it for life. Maybe it's this same ridiculous static worldview that leads to things like the tea party and other people who are unwilling to see a larger world view. Maybe these people need a static view of intelligence because if we didn't have one, their stasis would reveal how unintelligent they really are--they are the ones who haven't expanded, who haven't grown, who stay stuck with an IQ from grade school.
It's time to move on and recognize how people expand their intelligence every day, every experience, every bit wiser.
People claim that the IQ tests actually measure intelligence, but they really only measure a certain kind of intelligence, and they certainly don't work for all kinds of people. Yet, we still continue to view them as some definitive measure of a person's intellectual value. I think about my childhood and how I was tested multiple times for the gifted program before I got in. Suddenly my IQ was high enough. What about me had changed? Had I suddenly learned how to take the tests?
I also think about how the experiences we have in life changed me and expanded my ways of thinking. Is that intelligence or wisdom? What is the difference?
I guess what it comes down to is that someone in our society has decided that once you're labeled as intellgent or less intelligent that's it you're stuck with it for life. Maybe it's this same ridiculous static worldview that leads to things like the tea party and other people who are unwilling to see a larger world view. Maybe these people need a static view of intelligence because if we didn't have one, their stasis would reveal how unintelligent they really are--they are the ones who haven't expanded, who haven't grown, who stay stuck with an IQ from grade school.
It's time to move on and recognize how people expand their intelligence every day, every experience, every bit wiser.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
More authors for this blog
So I've finally taken the time to invite some more opinions. I figure that we are all women with strong opinions, we won't necessarily agree, is this starting to sound like The View???
Ok so I'm not Barbara Walters....
Anything you want to rant about is fine....go for it.
Ok so I'm not Barbara Walters....
Anything you want to rant about is fine....go for it.
Arizona's new law to arrest/detain those who "look" like an illegal immigrant
Arizona's new law allowing police officers to stop those who look like illegal immigrants is laughable. What exactly does an illegal immigrant look like and how does that person's looks, language, and demeanor differ from a legal immigrant?
What are we so afraid of that we have to waste time with stupid laws? This is a law clearly directed at brown people as since as Robert Jensen argues "America is a white country"Jensen article. Are we afraid that someone is going to take away our country like we took away theirs?
The absolute irony is that all of our border states were once part of Mexico before we purchased (wheeled and dealt) them. So families had been living in those places for centuries and after the purchase, an arbitrary line was drawn to separate them into two countries with different rules, laws, and requirements. Yet the cultures that existed had been the same for years. Just because white Americans see a line that separates two countries at that border doesn't mean that the native people who live there see the same border. Yes, you could argue that that border has now been there for at least 100 years, but if white Americans are any indication, you could also argue it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Just for once, I'd like someone to look at a situation from a perspective other than his/her own narrow one. To me the bottom line is this--the new law just legalizes racial profiling.
What are we so afraid of that we have to waste time with stupid laws? This is a law clearly directed at brown people as since as Robert Jensen argues "America is a white country"Jensen article. Are we afraid that someone is going to take away our country like we took away theirs?
The absolute irony is that all of our border states were once part of Mexico before we purchased (wheeled and dealt) them. So families had been living in those places for centuries and after the purchase, an arbitrary line was drawn to separate them into two countries with different rules, laws, and requirements. Yet the cultures that existed had been the same for years. Just because white Americans see a line that separates two countries at that border doesn't mean that the native people who live there see the same border. Yes, you could argue that that border has now been there for at least 100 years, but if white Americans are any indication, you could also argue it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Just for once, I'd like someone to look at a situation from a perspective other than his/her own narrow one. To me the bottom line is this--the new law just legalizes racial profiling.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Is it really ok to disrespect the President
Driving down to work the other day, I saw a bumper sticker that called President Obama an "error" that needed to be corrected--or something to that effect. I started to think about all of the extreme language that is used about him and how upset people (often republicans) get about anything he does or says. I started to think about how I conducted myself when Bush was in office. I was struck that I had said some bad things about him, but as I thought about it further, it wasn't really because he was a republican. Bush didn't in any way command respect--he in many ways brought on ridicule by not thinking before he spoke. I'm sure I never said the disrespectful kinds of things that I said about him about his father or president Regan. Regan afterall was an excellent speaker and very charismatic--someone who commanded the respect of the people. Someone, not unlike Barack Obama--intelligent, well-versed, a listener.
Then this morning on Facebook, one friend had joined a group "petitioning to remove a group from facebook who was praying for the president's death." Did I read that right?? Would someone really wish someone dead? I don't think I even thought of that one about Bush. Maybe I assumed we might all be dead for some of the stupid moves he made with regard to foreign policy and the rest of the world, but wish him dead???
I don't know who is perpetuating these attitudes and extreme disrespect, but I find it irritating, especially when a president is trying hard to do what's best for the majority of people and he is extremely educated and well-spoken. He is deserving of respect, no matter how we view his politics, no matter if we agree or disagree with him.
This leads me to wonder if these aren't just white supremist attitudes bleeding through--is it that we can't believe a person is capable of leading our country or meeting our needs unless he looks like us? Does he "deserve" disrespect simply because he is part African-American, regardless of his other outstanding credentials? After all, he loves his wife and children, allows gardens to be planted at the white house, feels that U.S. should be cooperating with other countries for a better world. But, because he is not taking a colonizing attitude, we are somehow unable to trust and respect him?
These tea partiers are not working for radical change--they are simple holding on tight to the status quo!
Then this morning on Facebook, one friend had joined a group "petitioning to remove a group from facebook who was praying for the president's death." Did I read that right?? Would someone really wish someone dead? I don't think I even thought of that one about Bush. Maybe I assumed we might all be dead for some of the stupid moves he made with regard to foreign policy and the rest of the world, but wish him dead???
I don't know who is perpetuating these attitudes and extreme disrespect, but I find it irritating, especially when a president is trying hard to do what's best for the majority of people and he is extremely educated and well-spoken. He is deserving of respect, no matter how we view his politics, no matter if we agree or disagree with him.
This leads me to wonder if these aren't just white supremist attitudes bleeding through--is it that we can't believe a person is capable of leading our country or meeting our needs unless he looks like us? Does he "deserve" disrespect simply because he is part African-American, regardless of his other outstanding credentials? After all, he loves his wife and children, allows gardens to be planted at the white house, feels that U.S. should be cooperating with other countries for a better world. But, because he is not taking a colonizing attitude, we are somehow unable to trust and respect him?
These tea partiers are not working for radical change--they are simple holding on tight to the status quo!
Friday, February 12, 2010
Mothers' work
A friend's blog post "Post Feminist Musing" http://chretienfamilyblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/post-feminist-musings.html got me thinking on the topic of mothers, their work--paid and unpaid, and the way we still find no value in the kinds of work that sustain life--what by some is considered unproductive labor since it does nothing to further material wealth.
Here is an overview from Wikipedia (not the best resource but an ok place to start):
The classical political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo raised the economic question of which kinds of labour contributed to increasing society's wealth, as against activities which do not produce a vendible commodity which can be resold at a profit. They regarded human labour as the mainspring of wealth, and therefore they regarded the economical use of labour as highly important.
Within an enterprise, for example, there were many tasks which had to be performed, such as cleaning, record and bookkeeping or repairs, which did not directly contribute to producing and increasing wealth in the sense of making a net addition to it - in other words, such tasks represented a net cost to the enterprise which had to be minimized.
From this 18th/19th century spouting about an industrial economny, we can begin to understand how it is that "women's work" was denigraded and classified as less important. The work that was less important wasn't even necessarily women's work, but it seems that as that work was classified as less important, men gravitated to the important and left the women with the place "they deserved" and the work that they "deserved". I'm quoting because I think these attitudes are old fashioned and I don't believe that we have the same attitudes toward women today, yet we do have these same attitudes towards that type of work--no matter who is performing it.
If we truly looked at the human costs of not doing this work--then the work of raising children, keeping house, home cooking high quality food, record/bookkeeping becomes much more valuable. If these things didn't get done, how would any of the people doing the "productive" work accomplish anything? How would we even have anyone who was willing and able to do the "productive" work if mothers/fathers and teachers weren't raising thinking, caring human beings?
My suspicion is that if the Smith and other economists had valued the "unproductive" human work instead of the "productive" work, then the 19th and 20th century men would have been scrambling to find a way to get paid for staying home with their kids and would have sent their wives off to the factories. Of course all of this discussion of choice about who does which work completely ignores the poor and/or ethnic minorities who did and still do both productive and "non-productive" work just to keep themselves afloat because of their status in the U.S.
Still shouldn't we value the human contributions more? Probably not in our society--contributing to material wealth is always more important than the human wealth or costs of not valuing humans, animals, or not valuing anything beyond our own material needs.
Here is an overview from Wikipedia (not the best resource but an ok place to start):
The classical political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo raised the economic question of which kinds of labour contributed to increasing society's wealth, as against activities which do not produce a vendible commodity which can be resold at a profit. They regarded human labour as the mainspring of wealth, and therefore they regarded the economical use of labour as highly important.
Within an enterprise, for example, there were many tasks which had to be performed, such as cleaning, record and bookkeeping or repairs, which did not directly contribute to producing and increasing wealth in the sense of making a net addition to it - in other words, such tasks represented a net cost to the enterprise which had to be minimized.
From this 18th/19th century spouting about an industrial economny, we can begin to understand how it is that "women's work" was denigraded and classified as less important. The work that was less important wasn't even necessarily women's work, but it seems that as that work was classified as less important, men gravitated to the important and left the women with the place "they deserved" and the work that they "deserved". I'm quoting because I think these attitudes are old fashioned and I don't believe that we have the same attitudes toward women today, yet we do have these same attitudes towards that type of work--no matter who is performing it.
If we truly looked at the human costs of not doing this work--then the work of raising children, keeping house, home cooking high quality food, record/bookkeeping becomes much more valuable. If these things didn't get done, how would any of the people doing the "productive" work accomplish anything? How would we even have anyone who was willing and able to do the "productive" work if mothers/fathers and teachers weren't raising thinking, caring human beings?
My suspicion is that if the Smith and other economists had valued the "unproductive" human work instead of the "productive" work, then the 19th and 20th century men would have been scrambling to find a way to get paid for staying home with their kids and would have sent their wives off to the factories. Of course all of this discussion of choice about who does which work completely ignores the poor and/or ethnic minorities who did and still do both productive and "non-productive" work just to keep themselves afloat because of their status in the U.S.
Still shouldn't we value the human contributions more? Probably not in our society--contributing to material wealth is always more important than the human wealth or costs of not valuing humans, animals, or not valuing anything beyond our own material needs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
