As much for posterity as any other reason, I'll post this here for future reference.
My letter in today's Daily Local News:
http://www.dailylocal.com/article/20130507/OPINION02/130509703/a-few-recent-headlines-contain-some-positives?nstrack=sid:593146|met:300|cat:0|order:4
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
This was an interesting article in the NYT last week about confidence in women and men. Some interesting quotes from the story and my reactions:
“I firmly believe one of the unintended consequences of the feminist revolution has been that men in my generation are raised without a strong self-identity, and, in essence, grow up to be little more than boys looking for mothers.”
As much as I'd like to believe that, I'm not sure men weren't looking to marry a woman like their mom back in the day anyway. It was just accepted that it was that way. Now a man is expected to do many of those things himself. We don't like it, but we understand it.
One 58-year-old mom wrote that mothers “might as well have had, as a friend of mine puts it, ‘our vocal cords cut.’ We want to talk in nice voices and stay calm and sit down and have a heart-to-heart. Our children want the five-minute version — direct, to the point. They come back at anything we say with smart remarks that knock the wind out of our sails.”
Kids don't want the 5-minute version - they want the 5-second version.
More women wrote about conflicts with other women than about conflicts with men. One retired Army officer wrote, “Girls and women are highly critical of any other girl or woman who exhibits confidence. Men, on the whole, do not ‘shut down’ women who are intelligent and confident, but women do.”
This was my favorite part of the whole article. Women like to blame men for their lack of achievement in the workplace, but this suggests it is other women that play more of a role. Not sure that's true though, or won't be until women are in more positions of power to be in a position to have that power, but maybe it's truer in companies I've never worked for.
“As a believer in Jesus Christ, I see myself as redeemed, forgiven and covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I believe that this is how God sees me, all the time and without exception. I believe that his smile and delight in me is unwavering. This view of myself is quite simple yet with profound implications. It allows me to accept criticism without self-condemnation and to accept affirmations without exalting myself. This is the ideal view of myself that I am always working at. It is a struggle, but a good one.”
Needless to say, I'm not the classic Christian she is, but I love her point anyway. What's wrong with having flaws, whether we realize them ourselves or others point them out to us, in either a constructive or sarcastic or attacking way. It's all okay. We're all flawed. The main point is to take those criticisms and analyze them to see if we see truth in the observation and try to do better.
(There is another blog post to come, if I remember, based on the idea that "It's all okay...all of it...everything." And it is as simple as it is profound.)
Anyway, I sent the entire article to the ya-ya's and yo-yo's and one of the two reactions to it was this:
Dear Jamie Louise (inside ya-yo humor), Thanks for the David Brooks article I really got a kick out of it because I was just talking to a young 30ths daughter of a friend about the differences in Men and women today.I believe women are no longer willing to put up with "the power over" good ole boy syndrome of the past several hundred years. They are remembering their feminine powers which include use of intuition as a way of knowing, and many old ways of healing,body, mind and spirit. Women also see life in a fuller spectrum of color and emotion,possibly because we give birth and have to be caregivers. Anyway, it's my opinion that throughout history men have found these powers threatening at different times and in certain ways and thus the use of Physical power over was used to control and contain. History is not a pretty picture. We seemed doomed to repeating our mistakes and there has been continuous war on the planet since the beginning. Maybe" Herstory" could offer something new. Maybe men and women could not compete but work as partners where everyone gets to bring all there gifts to the table.Women wouldn't have to be like men in order to succeed. Love ,in other words could reign, instead of fear. If we look to the microcosm, a marriage let's say. Where each is loved and respected and encourage to grow and develop and be in true team partnership. How great is that. And couldn't the macrocosm be just an expansion of those principles. I really also don't believe that if given a choice, any mother that birthed a baby wants to send that child to war. Women are on the rise and my prayer is that men will not be intimidated, but will support the movement and we can change the world side by side blowing wind beneath each others wings. These are just some of my thoughts. Love you Jamie and hope to see ya soon, Karen Louise
To which I responded:
“I firmly believe one of the unintended consequences of the feminist revolution has been that men in my generation are raised without a strong self-identity, and, in essence, grow up to be little more than boys looking for mothers.”
As much as I'd like to believe that, I'm not sure men weren't looking to marry a woman like their mom back in the day anyway. It was just accepted that it was that way. Now a man is expected to do many of those things himself. We don't like it, but we understand it.
One 58-year-old mom wrote that mothers “might as well have had, as a friend of mine puts it, ‘our vocal cords cut.’ We want to talk in nice voices and stay calm and sit down and have a heart-to-heart. Our children want the five-minute version — direct, to the point. They come back at anything we say with smart remarks that knock the wind out of our sails.”
Kids don't want the 5-minute version - they want the 5-second version.
More women wrote about conflicts with other women than about conflicts with men. One retired Army officer wrote, “Girls and women are highly critical of any other girl or woman who exhibits confidence. Men, on the whole, do not ‘shut down’ women who are intelligent and confident, but women do.”
This was my favorite part of the whole article. Women like to blame men for their lack of achievement in the workplace, but this suggests it is other women that play more of a role. Not sure that's true though, or won't be until women are in more positions of power to be in a position to have that power, but maybe it's truer in companies I've never worked for.
“As a believer in Jesus Christ, I see myself as redeemed, forgiven and covered in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. I believe that this is how God sees me, all the time and without exception. I believe that his smile and delight in me is unwavering. This view of myself is quite simple yet with profound implications. It allows me to accept criticism without self-condemnation and to accept affirmations without exalting myself. This is the ideal view of myself that I am always working at. It is a struggle, but a good one.”
Needless to say, I'm not the classic Christian she is, but I love her point anyway. What's wrong with having flaws, whether we realize them ourselves or others point them out to us, in either a constructive or sarcastic or attacking way. It's all okay. We're all flawed. The main point is to take those criticisms and analyze them to see if we see truth in the observation and try to do better.
(There is another blog post to come, if I remember, based on the idea that "It's all okay...all of it...everything." And it is as simple as it is profound.)
Anyway, I sent the entire article to the ya-ya's and yo-yo's and one of the two reactions to it was this:
Dear Jamie Louise (inside ya-yo humor), Thanks for the David Brooks article I really got a kick out of it because I was just talking to a young 30ths daughter of a friend about the differences in Men and women today.I believe women are no longer willing to put up with "the power over" good ole boy syndrome of the past several hundred years. They are remembering their feminine powers which include use of intuition as a way of knowing, and many old ways of healing,body, mind and spirit. Women also see life in a fuller spectrum of color and emotion,possibly because we give birth and have to be caregivers. Anyway, it's my opinion that throughout history men have found these powers threatening at different times and in certain ways and thus the use of Physical power over was used to control and contain. History is not a pretty picture. We seemed doomed to repeating our mistakes and there has been continuous war on the planet since the beginning. Maybe" Herstory" could offer something new. Maybe men and women could not compete but work as partners where everyone gets to bring all there gifts to the table.Women wouldn't have to be like men in order to succeed. Love ,in other words could reign, instead of fear. If we look to the microcosm, a marriage let's say. Where each is loved and respected and encourage to grow and develop and be in true team partnership. How great is that. And couldn't the macrocosm be just an expansion of those principles. I really also don't believe that if given a choice, any mother that birthed a baby wants to send that child to war. Women are on the rise and my prayer is that men will not be intimidated, but will support the movement and we can change the world side by side blowing wind beneath each others wings. These are just some of my thoughts. Love you Jamie and hope to see ya soon, Karen Louise
To which I responded:
J “Jamie Louise” J I love that.
I agree with everything you say here, but I would put it another
way. I think women have far more power than men, but don't understand how to harness it…or, as you say,
may need to remember how to use it. It’s kind of like Dorothy in the WoOz, with
her ruby slippers. She had the power all along. All she had to do is use it.
Easier said than done, I know, but you’re right – Love is the most powerful
tool of all! I love you too, Karen Louise and I hope to see you and Jack
sometime soon too. – Jamie Louise!
Monday, May 6, 2013
This is such a great article in last week's NY Times.
I wanted to excerpt parts of it, but there's not much I wouldn't want to highlight. That said, here is the best of it:
Democrats got 1.4 million more votes for all House positions in 2012 but Republicans still won control with a cushion of 33 seats.
Look at how different this Republican House is from the country they are supposed to represent. It’s almost like a parallel government, sitting in for some fantasy nation created in talk-radio land.
As a whole, Congress has never been more diverse, except the House majority. There are 41 black members of the House, but all of them are Democrats. There are 10 Asian-Americans, but all of them are Democrats. There are 34 Latinos, a record — and all but 7 are Democrats. There are 7 openly gay, lesbian or bisexual members, all of them Democrats.
Only 63 percent of the United States population is white. But in the House Republican majority, it’s 96 percent white. Women are 51 percent of the nation, but among the ruling members of the House, they make up just 8 percent. (It’s 30 percent on the Democratic side.)
Now let’s look at how the members govern:
To date, seven bills have been enacted. Let’s see, there was the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship act — “ensuring the stability of the helium market.” The Violence Against Women Act was renewed, but only after a majority of Republicans voted against it, a rare instance of letting the full House decide on something that the public favors. Just recently, they rushed through a change to help frequent air travelers — i.e., themselves — by fixing a small part of the blunt budget cuts that are the result of their inability to compromise. Meal assistance to the elderly, Head Start for kids and other programs will continue to fall under the knife of sequestration.
I wanted to excerpt parts of it, but there's not much I wouldn't want to highlight. That said, here is the best of it:
Democrats got 1.4 million more votes for all House positions in 2012 but Republicans still won control with a cushion of 33 seats.
Look at how different this Republican House is from the country they are supposed to represent. It’s almost like a parallel government, sitting in for some fantasy nation created in talk-radio land.
As a whole, Congress has never been more diverse, except the House majority. There are 41 black members of the House, but all of them are Democrats. There are 10 Asian-Americans, but all of them are Democrats. There are 34 Latinos, a record — and all but 7 are Democrats. There are 7 openly gay, lesbian or bisexual members, all of them Democrats.
Only 63 percent of the United States population is white. But in the House Republican majority, it’s 96 percent white. Women are 51 percent of the nation, but among the ruling members of the House, they make up just 8 percent. (It’s 30 percent on the Democratic side.)
Now let’s look at how the members govern:
To date, seven bills have been enacted. Let’s see, there was the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship act — “ensuring the stability of the helium market.” The Violence Against Women Act was renewed, but only after a majority of Republicans voted against it, a rare instance of letting the full House decide on something that the public favors. Just recently, they rushed through a change to help frequent air travelers — i.e., themselves — by fixing a small part of the blunt budget cuts that are the result of their inability to compromise. Meal assistance to the elderly, Head Start for kids and other programs will continue to fall under the knife of sequestration.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Every now and then, a blogger on Dailykos lists some of his favorite signature lines---aka the links, quotes, or other words of wisdom that some add to the bottom of their comments --- that he's come across.
I see them and I think - I wish I'd thought to say that! Here are my faves from the most recent list:
- I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public. (Chrisove)
- I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire engine. -- Kurt Vonnegut (SteelerGrrl)
- Lanza's mom had..an ar-15...Glock 20...Sig 9mm...nine full 30 round ammo clips...my mom has..cookies. (Arrow)
- You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. --Anne Lamott (zooecium)
- Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote. (lostboyjim)
- The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith (richardak)
- Give blood. Play hockey. (flycaster)
- liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject (RockyMtnLib)
- Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library. (maxschell)
Here's mine:
Thanks.
- Jamie
I see them and I think - I wish I'd thought to say that! Here are my faves from the most recent list:
- I don't mind if you're straight. Just don't flaunt it in public. (Chrisove)
- I can think of no more stirring symbol of man's humanity to man than a fire engine. -- Kurt Vonnegut (SteelerGrrl)
- Lanza's mom had..an ar-15...Glock 20...Sig 9mm...nine full 30 round ammo clips...my mom has..cookies. (Arrow)
- You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do. --Anne Lamott (zooecium)
- Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote. (lostboyjim)
- The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. -- John Kenneth Galbraith (richardak)
- Give blood. Play hockey. (flycaster)
- liberal bias = failure to validate or sufficiently flatter the conservative narrative on any given subject (RockyMtnLib)
- Send your old shoes to the new George W. Bush library. (maxschell)
Here's mine:
Thanks.
- Jamie
Friday, April 12, 2013
And of course it goes without saying that the more we do of #4, the more we'll get of #5
Seems to me women want men to be as complex as they (women) are, so that there is something, some mysterious key to “figuring us out” and women are continually surprised and disappointed that we’re as simple as we are.
1 - Food
2 - Football
3 - Fucking
4 - Farting
(and yeah, probably in that order once we're married. #3 was probably higher before we got married.)
Once women get that, they’ve got 90% of us. Oh, wait, those 4 and:
5 - The need for space…lots of space.
And we men want women to be as simple as we men are and we are continually surprised and disappointed that they’re as complex as they are.
And believe me, I'm not even a little bit proud of any of that from my perspective.
1 - Food
2 - Football
3 - Fucking
4 - Farting
(and yeah, probably in that order once we're married. #3 was probably higher before we got married.)
Once women get that, they’ve got 90% of us. Oh, wait, those 4 and:
5 - The need for space…lots of space.
And we men want women to be as simple as we men are and we are continually surprised and disappointed that they’re as complex as they are.
And believe me, I'm not even a little bit proud of any of that from my perspective.
Wednesday, April 3, 2013
Ask guys in my age-range about their memories of their first experience in going to a ballgame, and I'll bet a majority, even if it's only 51%, would refer to the least likely of answers: The Colors.
Because most of us grew up without a color TV until I was out of college I think, when I went to my first game at old Connie Mack Stadium in 1966 (in fact, here's the boxscore - I remember so much about that game!), as I walked through the vomitorium (look it up - it's not what you think), ok, through the entrance under the seats into the seating area, it was like Dorothy stepping out of her house into Munchkinland - oh, what bright, vivid colors!
The dazzling green grass, the white chalk lines, the fire engine red seats, the blue I-don't-remember-what, I just remember vivid blues too! Just dazzling.
Oh, and I also went to the last game ever played at Connie Mack, which is probably worthy of a blog post of its own, but in case someone comes across a bright red seat in the garage some day and it looks like this:
just the seat part, not the back, well, that's where it came from.
Because most of us grew up without a color TV until I was out of college I think, when I went to my first game at old Connie Mack Stadium in 1966 (in fact, here's the boxscore - I remember so much about that game!), as I walked through the vomitorium (look it up - it's not what you think), ok, through the entrance under the seats into the seating area, it was like Dorothy stepping out of her house into Munchkinland - oh, what bright, vivid colors!
The dazzling green grass, the white chalk lines, the fire engine red seats, the blue I-don't-remember-what, I just remember vivid blues too! Just dazzling.
Oh, and I also went to the last game ever played at Connie Mack, which is probably worthy of a blog post of its own, but in case someone comes across a bright red seat in the garage some day and it looks like this:
just the seat part, not the back, well, that's where it came from.
Tuesday, April 2, 2013
My first impressions from last night's Phillies opener, as emailed to a friend:
I think Cole really missed Chooch last night. I like Kratz, but the 2 of them didn’t seem to be jiving real well and Hamels’ pitch selections were weird and he seemed rushed. Hopefully first game jitters, but hard to understand from a former World Series MVP.
I like Revere but I don’t see him hitting one out this year without a lot of wind behind him. We have a pool on him in our fantasy league. I have 8/4/13, but that includes inside-the-parkers.
I didn’t mind Cholly starting Mayberry last night. Nix looks totally lost. I wonder if he’ll keep Revere at the top of the lineup against lefties. I kind of hope not. But I do like their lineup in general. I think they’ll score a lot of runs.
Everyone’s concerned about Halladay. I think you can book something in the 12-12 4.20 ERA range. I think Kendrick may be even more of a key and a variable this year oddly. Is he the guy who led the majors in ERA the last 5-6 weeks of 2012 or the guy who got hammered in his last exhibition game?
M Young stunk at 3B last night on 3 different plays, I think. He better get better.
I love Freddie Galvis and I think he could play 15+ years in the bigs. I even think he has an offensive future too. Of course, so do I, and that future is 0/0/.000.
I’m not going to waste any time getting to hate the Uptons. Done.
Oh, I forgot to mention in the email, all the Uptons except one:
I think Cole really missed Chooch last night. I like Kratz, but the 2 of them didn’t seem to be jiving real well and Hamels’ pitch selections were weird and he seemed rushed. Hopefully first game jitters, but hard to understand from a former World Series MVP.
I like Revere but I don’t see him hitting one out this year without a lot of wind behind him. We have a pool on him in our fantasy league. I have 8/4/13, but that includes inside-the-parkers.
I didn’t mind Cholly starting Mayberry last night. Nix looks totally lost. I wonder if he’ll keep Revere at the top of the lineup against lefties. I kind of hope not. But I do like their lineup in general. I think they’ll score a lot of runs.
Everyone’s concerned about Halladay. I think you can book something in the 12-12 4.20 ERA range. I think Kendrick may be even more of a key and a variable this year oddly. Is he the guy who led the majors in ERA the last 5-6 weeks of 2012 or the guy who got hammered in his last exhibition game?
M Young stunk at 3B last night on 3 different plays, I think. He better get better.
I love Freddie Galvis and I think he could play 15+ years in the bigs. I even think he has an offensive future too. Of course, so do I, and that future is 0/0/.000.
I’m not going to waste any time getting to hate the Uptons. Done.
Oh, I forgot to mention in the email, all the Uptons except one:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)