But if nothing else, I am much better now at spelling misogyny!

A recent widely-shared (among my family and ya-yo friends) article in the Atlanta Journal Constitution dealt with examples of the misogyny rampant in today's world, and it brought out an initial reaction from me to Cheryl for which I apologized later, when she asked if I had read it:

"You mean the article on how Men Suck?"

Hey - I said I apologized for it! I am not proud to observe that I am far more sympathetic to and interested in battling racism than I am misogyny. 

I know far more women who outwardly and/or admittedly hate men than vice versa.

But...I would also say that I know far more men who don't respect women, than vice versa. And I think the issue of misandry and misogyny could/should be kept separate. 

As for the article itself, I didn't learn anything from it. Her points have been made repeatedly so I was surprised and disappointed that the author wasn't able to add anything new to the dialogue. That said, there is always value in continuing to give energy, publicity and power to the push back.

The issue and belief I have, in Jamie World, that I've never heard anyone else spew, is the undervalued and underused power of femininity. But that is so at odds with the feminist mindset, I believe it's hard for most to really try to explore it intellectually. 

Since our society has always equated femininity (which is THE worst word to try to say when you've had a beer or three) with weakness, it's a challenge to think of it any other way. And as I have probably said in this blog somewhere else, I find women to be superior to men in every way except physical attributes. Wait, that doesn't sound right - I way prefer women's physical attributes! I'm talking about the kinds of things measured in, say, the Olympics. ("The Olympics!") And I think when it comes to the power of women, it's like Glinda telling Dorothy that she had the power all along.  Someday, women may not only realize their powers, they will use them. And because women are kinder, more giving, more thoughtful and smarter, and better at playing and working well with others, not to mention easier to dance with, I suspect they'll use that power for good, not the way we men too often have used our strength/s.

We know, sadly, what Huey Lewis thinks

What is most powerful?

- Wealth

- The desire for and pursuit of wealth...

- Or love? 

And not just the love that comes with falling in love, which is the best feeling in the world, or being in love, which is the second best, but treating everyone with love and making all one's decisions based on love.

Or is the quest for power the most powerful? 

Even if one's goal is to use that power to make, say, a country's, policies based on love?

I guess the easy answer...and the most accurate...is that it depends on the person. But more generally, I think depends on whether one looks at our day-to-day lives and the fabric of society that includes procreation, but when it comes to government and policies that impact every aspect of our lives, it's probably the quest for and exercise of power.

Just something I was thinking maybe a little too much about.

Clearly this is the best, the most tremendous post ever!

In uncomfortable ways, Donald Trump reflected the worst in all of us, Republican, Democrat and Independent or Other. To Donald, everything he did was the biggest, the best, the most tremendous, etc. And we on the left were annoyed by it, but...how different is that from what we crave? We want our football team to be the best. We want our favorite to win the Oscar, Grammy, Emmy. We want our country to win the most gold medals. We want our country/state/county/town/street/house/living room to be the most tremendous. We want our favorite restaurant to be ranked the best. We want our country and people to be exceptional (which literally, everyone and every country is, by definition.)

And it all ties in with our desire to spend trillions of dollars on a military that is thousands of times bigger than it needs to be so that it, and thus, we, can be the best, the strongest, the most intimidating, just like we want our football team to be.

So, wait, we're NOT exceptional then?

It is said that history is written by the winners. In the latest blog entry by Anand Ghiridharadas, and his interview with Ayad Akhtar, they refer to a quote by Norbert Elias, the great German sociologist: 

“The established majority takes its we-image from a minority of its best, and shapes a they-image of the despised outsiders from the minority of their worst.” 

And they go on to give this case in point: "We've had a tough time getting anybody to take white domestic terrorism seriously as terrorism. Now that conversation has finally gone mainstream, when of course the threat to the American social body because of Islamic terrorism has really been pretty minuscule in comparison over the years." 

So history is written by the winners and the majority gets to not only define themselves, but the minority as well, all of which only perpetuates those myths and makes our job harder to show that we are all equal and all have the same strengths and weaknesses.

OY! como va (Not sure Santayana said that either)

 

Irish statesman Edmund Burke is often misquoted as having said, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” Spanish philosopher George Santayana is credited with the aphorism, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” while British statesman Winston Churchill wrote, “Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

But doesn't that presume all history is bad? Seems to me there is some history we do need to repeat, like a return to democracy, honoring the Constitution, stronger workers' rights, a strong middle class, and a return to an emphasis on peace, love and understanding. 

And maybe even a return to just two choices of toothpaste.

 (Ed. Note: I actually wrote this on January 19th and didn't post it until after Joe Biden's inauguration yesterday where it was so refreshing to see that Joe seems to have the same concerns and priorities regarding Democracy, the Constitution, etc. 

No references in his speech to toothpaste however. Perhaps in his second term.)

Colorful opinions

My sister Sherry sent me an article last summer on race relations and after thanking her for the article, which I wish I could link to here because it would give the thoughts below better context but which I have long since tossed, I wrote her this, well, much of it anyway. I've added a few thoughts, acknowledging that any time someone talks about racism, the first thing that needs to be done is to define our terms:

1 - Pretty much all of us of any color/race/background are racists. 

2 - That doesn't mean that all of us discriminate or treat people worse based on their race.

3 - But it does mean we treat them, or at least see them, differently.

4 - There is no such thing as reverse racism. There's only racism.

5 - Doesn't matter who is or isn't racist, or who does or doesn't discriminate, as long as the system is racist, which it clearly is.

6 - The single best way to address racism is improved educational opportunity for minority students...or better - equal educational opportunity for all students. 

7 - The most overlooked aspect of racism is that there is also a strong class component to it. Low income neighborhoods of any color will generally stay that way until their education opportunity (read: funding and infrastructure) improves. 

8 - That is the form that reparations should take - making sure people living in school districts with the least funding receive more than the schools currently receiving the most, until grades and SAT scores and the metrics even out, and then they should all be equalized.

Some provocative thoughts that might upset folks, but I would so love to talk with anyone of color who disagrees. I have so much more I need to learn about this.

Evolution by Elimination

In my radical view of the future, or the normal view in current day Jamie World, two evolutions will take place - the elimination of Identity Politics and of US military bases or military involvement in any country outside of ours.

I cringe when I hear my left-wing friends say, or when I read political views that say the Dems need to work harder to get the ______ (Insert identity here: Black, Latino, Gay, Native American, Southern, Gay, Transgender) vote. 

How about policies that just help everyone who has been denied equal opportunity? Discrimination against any of us should be an affront to all of us. And policies to address such inequities should be sweeping. For too long, policies that help the privileged/highest earners have been excused by saying "a rising tide lifts all boats." Well, instead of adding water to help the yachts, how about we focus on the dinghies and rowboats, especially if they need to be bailed out to begin with?

That said, I have no problem giving priority to appointing/hiring people from the disadvantaged classes where all else is relatively equal ahead of those of us in the more privileged classes, even though that approach has negatively impacted me personally in the past.

As far as the military is concerned, I used to have a friend Mike - the producer of Flyers' telecasts - who would say when talk would turn to our foreign military entanglements, "Let me know when they land on the Jersey Shore." And more and more, that is my feeling too. I hope is that someday, there is a major Presidential candidate who espouses the view that all our troops should come home to defend our country from here and return most of them to civilian status. Far right conservatives would have a knee-jerk group head explosion, but the way to appease/convince them would be to point out that it would balance the budget in about a year and a half. And I think many of them who already have a libertarian streak would approve regardless.

Now, would that make us weaker? No, the military would then take on a role in addition to protecting our shorelines. When world crises hit, we would be there to help. Famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, plagues - at the invitation of any foreign government, we would make available whatever resources in funds and personnel to do our best to help them. Not by giving them monies, which might fall in the wrong hands. Well, actually, we do know it would - to the pockets of the powerful. So we would bring our people in to work with them, even paying their workers directly, to rebuild or provide and distribute aid also directly, on our conditions.

If you had a neighbor who was doing things to help neighbors of yours who were impacting you negatively, wouldn't you resent that neighbor as much or more than the one they were helping? And wouldn't one be far more likely to try to exact revenge on them in some way? But if your only approach was to be helpful to everyone in your neighborhood, do you think people would treat you better or worse? Sure, there are still bad people in the world, and likely in your neighborhood. But we're talking about odds here. Are people more likely to attack the USA if all we do is help people or if we get militarily involved to help other countries' enemies?

I know how naïve it sounds, and at times it would be. But it couldn't be any worse than the current policies that have cost us tens of thousands of lives and trillions and trillions of dollars, with no end in sight.

Who will be the first to have the courage to embrace such a concept? And how many decades from now?