It's All About We...

wordless wednesday

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 03:14:00 +0000

summarizing framing

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 02:04:00 +0000

At some point (soon?) I'll get back to blogging. In the meantime, if you have any interest in understanding what I've been winding around, trying to summarize... about the way our brains use metaphors to create meaning, how language is understood via metaphors, and how we use language (through metaphors) to create our values AND how the radical right has understood this since Nixon but exploded into it with Reagan and how we progressives are only helping them win. Well, this is a decent summary that I hope you might take the time to read: http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml

More from me another day.

wordless wednesday

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 02:53:00 +0000

wordless wednesday

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 15:39:00 +0000

What Are My Values?

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Mon, 12 Jul 2010 21:22:00 +0000

As a populist progressive I feel it is urgent that I know what my values are. I want those who share my values to know theirs, too. My values, with practical examples (very fast draft):

Freedom

of speech
of religion (to not practice or practice)
from government imposed religion
of access to capital, education, healthcare

Justice

governmental oversight of corporate activities
accountability from the highest levels first, then down the line (not the other way around)
"white collar crime" should be fought more strenuously than any drug use crimes (one example)

This is just a quickie draft, but I'm going to post it. It's my goal to come up with 5-10 key populist progressive values I can tweet. We'll see how it goes. We need to reframe the debate, take back the language, bring our country back to its progressive roots.

Growing Up

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 18:23:00 +0000

Those of you who know me know my older daughter (who will be seven next week!) is very attached. She is brilliant and tender and wise beyond her years. She has empathy at levels most adults can only... well, she's very, very empathetic. We have struggled over the years with the line between respecting her needs (staying with Mommy has always been her preference) and doing our jobs as parents (making the bigger decisions for her). More than most people, we have eased her in to separations. Sometimes it's difficult because mainstream wisdom says she's manipulating us while alternative wisdom says we're teaching her she's not capable on her own. Stubbornly, though, we've listened to our hearts. We know our daughter. We will make mistakes, of course, but we won't make choices based on what other people think we should do.

So today when I brought her to horseback riding camp (a place she has visited twice in her life for a few minutes each time) where there were thirteen children (her busiest day at school has 10) she'd never met (she's known most of her classmates for years) and where the day would be from 9-4:30 (her school day is typically 9:15ish to 3:20ish) you could say I was surprised when she said quickly, "Okay, goodbye!" and literally shoved me toward my car.

I'll admit I've spent the day expecting a call that she's crying and I should come get her. This happens at school with some regularity, though I don't go get her (typically) because she calls only moments before the end of the school day. But it's 3pm, no call. Her sister napped. I got a break. I'll post some photos of my big, big, big girl now and maybe come back to make it pretty later.

Preferring usually to show, not tell, I'm going to say this: I am proud.

.

How Populist Progressives are Helping the Radical Right Win

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 02:09:00 +0000

Yesterday I lost another follower on Twitter because I stated some opinions in ways that were unpalatable, apparently. One of the most surprising things I've learned in the last year is it's not the right wing crazies (as if there really is a left-right scale*) who are incapable of listening to and learning from new ideas. It's my own fellow populists.** Of course, I don't do the greatest job sharing these ideas because I get so upset by progressives who have their heads so far up their asses thinking they know what's morally right. They won't even listen for a moment to the possibility that they're missing some things.

Let me be clear. Populists/progressives are the true patriots. We are the people who recognize that all people have value, that we're only as strong as our weakest link, and that our nation was founded to expand freedom. That's the whole point. Expansion of freedom. The radical right are wrong. Their policies and domination of our culture will end up destroying everything most Americans care about.

But. The radical right is winning and we populists and progressives are helping them.

I've been thinking about this issue a lot in this brief blogging hiatus, trying to pare it down into a concise point. Divvying things up into separate posts. It's challenging. Here I'm going to try and focus on the issue of deafness and resistance I find among my peers.

I'll use yesterday's exchange as an example. This guy was tweeting about soldiers being murderers. I objected strenuously and with some words that definitely came off as arrogant. I was so fucking angry, though, because it does damage to so many people on so many levels when progressives make that kind of statement. It could be simply that this guy didn't like how I was talking to him, but I'm pretty sure (based on previous conversations) that the concepts I am trying to explain or share are so foreign to my fellow progressives they mishear me, classify me as conned by the right, and dismiss me. Or they think I'm a sellout, a compromiser, or just plain stupid. I don't know. Too often, they stop the conversations because they think I'm insulting them.

Here's the biggest problem of all. If someone says to me "I have information you don't, let me tell you about it" I don't think they are saying I'm an idiot/ignorant fool or anything like that. I think they think they have information I don't already have. They may be right. They may have information I can learn from. They may have useless crap that has no merit. In any case, though, another person having information or a new perspective or point of view doesn't make me feel insulted or attacked. I have had only a few instances where people I discuss these issues with are able to hear what I'm saying. Again, I'm sure a great deal of the fault is in my own communications. But, George Lakoff says it in one of his books, we progressives are so unfamiliar with the radical right's meanings for words like freedom, liberty, or fairness, that we can't even comprehend different meanings exist. It's so much easier to call them names, say they are immoral greedy assholes. Examining how all of our minds work (using metaphors to create meaning) doesn't mean we have to start accepting the radical right's behaviors. What it can do is free us to fight back. We need to get freedom back from the radical right. We can't do that if we refuse to acknowledge multiple meanings of the word.

Back to the Twitter unfollower. So, he said soldiers were murderers. I was really, really angry. I recently finished On Killing and learned so much about what it takes for one human being to kill another. With Vietnam, the military began perfecting the programming required to help soldiers kill. Before that more soldiers didn't kill than did. I'll blog about those issues another time. The point here is that I was angry. I was angry because I see attacking the soldiers as attacking the poor. Our military is made up of people with very few other decent options. These are not people who say, Oh, I could go to Yale or maybe join up with Daddy's hedge fund, but I guess I want to go kill people. No. In fact, people do not join the military to kill. Again, I'll come back to that.

So this guy says he "champions the poor" but that people join the military for a paycheck and then they go kill so they are murderers for hire.

His ignorance about the process of actually killing, the important distinction between killing and murdering, and his blaming the soldiers rather than the fucking elite at the top who are running things just infuriated me. I didn't keep my cool.

That said, he was talking all firey, too, so it wasn't out of context for me to be opinionated. The difference was, I can listen to someone through their ranting and try to hear what they are saying. He, instead, assumed he knew what I was saying (I am pretty sure he thought I was one of those "all soldiers are heroes" cult members who never questions what that means), insulted me, kept throwing statements at me I agreed with but didn't seem to think it mattered that I agreed with him.

This is so common, I've found, among my fellow populists and progressives. They think that looking at why the radical right is winning means accepting their positions as, well, as acceptable. Every time we slam the door on new perspectives and new knowledge we reinforce the radical right's stereotype they have so successfully woven into the fabric of our culture: liberals/progressives are elitists who think we know better than anyone.

We populists/progressives know our positions are right (we are, and our country will flourish if we can only get our shit together) but we are unwilling to understand why the radical right thinks they are right. They speak a different language and they are using that language to change the generally accepted meaning of such key words as freedom, liberty, justice, fairness, opportunity... the list goes on.

One small example? Every single time a populist or progressive refers to the occupations of Iraq or Afghanistan as "wars" we reinforce the radical right's frames. Those are not wars. The uncontested meaning of the word "war" involves a villain, a hero, battles, and an end through agreements or withdrawal of one side. These are not wars. These are occupations. Again, every time my fellow progressives or populists refer to them as "wars" and that is all the media ever call them, they reinforce the wrong frame. They reinforce this false notion that there is a clear villain and battles and the possibility of an end.

What I will do in the future is try to reign in my anger when I hear my like-minded peers destroying our own positions by empowering the radical right's frames (referring to the "wars" for example) and see if there is a way to share the concepts that doesn't come off as arrogant or, worse, as if I'm suggesting that all these different meanings are equally acceptable. I can only hope that people who want to preserve the founders' beliefs in the expansion of freedoms for everyone might start to listen to new ideas coming from within their own circles.

*I'm going to use "radical right" even though the idea of a left to right range is a creation of the radical right. How's that for a puzzle? Still, it's true. When I refer to the radical right I'm talking about Karl Rove/Bush W. style conservatives.

**I'm also going to use the term "populists" or "progressives" when referring to what I consider the closest to "opposite" the radical right. I'm using populists in the way Jim Hightower does (here's a good example of his meaning).

More:
Google books has "Whose Freedom" by George Lakoff available. It's just one of many of his books I wish all populists and progressives could read. He, of course, does a much better job of explaining these concepts. He does, though, come across as a know-it-all and somewhat arrogant. It is my firm opinion, however, that a great deal of that tone comes from the same place mine does. An urgency. We are losing. Our own people who care about equality and fairness and a thriving nation of free people are helping the radical right destroy everything. They are creating a plutocracy and the corporations will rule and regular people will suffer.

This article does a fine job (first few chapters of one of Lakoff's books) summarizing how our minds use metaphor to create values.

Updated Earlier Post

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sun, 04 Jul 2010 00:55:00 +0000

Just a note that I added a very small update to my last blog post.

Israel, Politics, Friendship

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 16:13:00 +0000

Update: My friend and I have had some good discussions and I've done a lot of reading. We're patching things up. Also, I no longer think the apartheid comparison is valid. In fact, I can see why it comes across as anti-Israel/antisemitic. When I get back to blogging, I'll probably tackle the topic. I was very, very, very uninformed about the whole topic. Still am, but I'm working on it.

No, I'm not done with my hiatus. This has simply become too big an issue for me to not speak out publicly.

This week I lost a friend because of things I said about Israel. I made mistakes. For example, I referred to the occupied territory as "Palestine" because the people are Palestinians and it's just how I've thought of it. I also made statements that with discussion and education I might not make again. For example, I compared the way the government of Israel keeps the Palestinian people locked away (without the resources they need to thrive) to apartheid. At this point I still feel it's a fair comparison. I told my friend who said we were through I wouldn't use that comparison again. I've since changed my mind.

A much closer friend of mine is having trouble with our friendship because of the things I've said and shared about Israel and the Palestinians. It's become clear to me I need to just make a public statement to get this stuff off my chest. I can only hope that I won't lose another friend. She is so important to me, I hope she will understand what I'm about to say.

The most important point I want to make is I am not very well informed about what's going on there or what the history is. I've read a lot, but I don't follow the issues day to day. Here is what I do know:

The research I've done (and it's been quite a bit, though I still consider myself not well informed) has consistently shown me that the history of this area of the world is ancient beyond anything I can imagine. The roots of the conflicts are deep is putting it lightly.
I will not believe it if someone says "x" started it. Not only do I find that a childish point, I believe it's impossible to know.
I will not accept the notion that it's okay to applaud the deaths of human beings, ever. If you speak about people dying and say "they deserved it" I will have a very hard time with that. I will tell you it makes me sick. I will want to discuss the issues with you, but I will not pretend I find it in any way acceptable. (People who have themselves killed are an exception for me since believing the person deserved it is frequently a coping mechanism required for combat.)
The argument that horrible acts of terrorism or oppression justify bad treatment of other human beings will never work with me. Two wrongs don't make a right, we learned as children.
If you refuse to discuss an issue because what I've said is so offensive, I will suspect I'm triggering an ugly truth you don't want to face. I'll have no idea what it is, but the act of refusing conversations based on what could be misunderstandings or ignorance is one of the greatest most obvious red flags I know.
My recognizing injustice when I see it (the powerful crushing the weak) does not equal my supporting terrorism. It does not equal supporting people who want to destroy Israel or people who want to destroy Jewish people just because they are Jewish. The two are not related. Of course I find such modes of thinking and terrifying actions abhorrent. Because I believe the Palestinian people need help does not mean I think it's okay that there are bombings in Israel, daily threats of terrorism, and all of the other nightmares of this conflit that people in parts of Israel face.
I don't want to lose any more friends over these issues. But I will plead with you to recognize there are no totally right answers and that destroying other human beings is never something to celebrate or support. I will ask you to consider this: if you refuse to talk with me about these issues, how will I ever understand your perspective?

I am biased. I see a nation of power using their resources to keep a group of people imprisoned, without clean water, without freedom of movement, and without safety. No matter what the reasons are—no matter what the reasons are—this is unacceptable. What nauseates me is how easily people seem to talk about the Palestinian people as if they aren't fully human. As if the fact that so many people among them are angry at Israel's government makes them somehow less valid.

There are horror stories on all sides of this conflict. There are not only two sides, I think we all can agree. I'm going to end this, though, with a youtube clip where you will hear a doctor's voice as he is with his now dead daughters. This is a doctor who is also a peace activist. More of his story, when he revisited his destroyed home three months later, can be found here.

Temporary Hiatus

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sun, 30 May 2010 21:32:00 +0000

I'm taking a short break from blogging. If you'd like me to email you when I get back to it, please do.

I Don't Believe in Atheists

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Mon, 24 May 2010 01:22:00 +0000

Considering this blog post I realized that I have a lot of friends who are atheists. Some are agnostic. Many are "kind of spiritual, maybe a little religious, but not really..." A few are Christian, a few are Jewish, and I know only very casually some practicing Hindus and Muslims. I probably know a Buddhist or two, and I definitely know a few Pagans. Myself I consider myself christian (lowercase "c") but it's probably most accurate to say I'm a Panentheist.

Atheists say "there is no god." And I say I agree that most concepts of god I've heard of sound not only implausible, but sometimes completely ridiculous. Instead of getting into god-concept bashing, though, I'd challenge all my atheist friends to explain what it is they don't believe in.

I'm quite sure any atheist who explains what they reject will end up opening the door to what they accept. It's my firm belief that every single human being has a concept of god. They just don't call it that.

I've said this before and my atheist friends accuse me of not respecting their position. It's not that at all. I totally believe them that they don't believe in god. But, again, what is it they don't believe in? Some personified omnipotent being? Some Father in the sky? Some metaphysical force that runs through all humanity? What is it they reject?

As soon as my atheist friends detail what it is they reject, they will find those powers outside themselves (or inside themselves) that they can choose to call god. That's all it is. A word. A label. It doesn't matter where it's applied.

It's too big too small to expansive too microscopic too other worldly too of this world... it's too everything. It's inexplicable. Undefinable. No words will ever fit "god" because, and this is just one of the reasons why: it means something different to every single human on this earth.

Atheists don't believe in god. And I don't believe in atheists.

My Friend Paula

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sun, 23 May 2010 01:23:00 +0000

Weeks ago I saw on Facebook that my friend Paula had a birthday. I've been off of Facebook for a couple months now, so I didn't have its handy-dandy little notice that her day was coming up. Turns out she fibbed about her birthday, but it was right around that time. I got to thinking about how I could really wish her a happy birthday. Not just an email (she's an online-only friend). Not an e-card. Not just "glad you were born!"

For days I constructed a brilliant essay about her. About her and me, of course. It was in my mind for days, then I started writing. Everything I wrote was crap. For weeks, it wasn't enough. Or it was too gushy. Or it was... well, screw it, I'm going to just tell you now. I wrote about how we met in the newsgroup misc.writing and how she scared the crap out of me. How she was so totally mean that I cried a few times after reading her posts directed at me. How even then I was struck by her open mindedness, her willingness to accept people with very overt and often offensive flaws.

I missed the blogging hey day (hay day?) that happened in the early 2000's, so I never got to know her in that way. Then, as misc.writing finally and totally collapsed Facebook revived our online world in a new way. That's when I started to really know her.

Paula is unique in this world. Of course everyone is, but Paula's unexpected. I kept trying to classify her as... well, you name it, I tried labels on her and none of them fit. She's strong, funny, a great writer, a dependable friend, and beautifully honest. She's gorgeous inside and out, too. She is one of my first friends who doesn't come from where I've been. Our backgrounds are different, our values are frequently different (besides valuing honesty and there are a few other key shared values), our politics are often different (don't even get me started on how misguided she is about Palestinians!), and she somehow understands the world that is shoe-lust. Shooz, that is. Or has it become sh00z? I think so.

She is herself. It's what I admire most about her. She may sometimes slide into trying to be something or someway for others, but more than most people, she stays true to being her. She's an incredible friend, a solid shoulder when I've needed it, and always (did I mention?) honest. She's amazing. And, yes, I am very glad she was born.

Happy birthday my dear, sweet friend. Here's some buttercream just for you.

.

Hi, I'm Heather, and I'm a Recovering Popular Kid

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sat, 22 May 2010 01:09:00 +0000

There are rules. And, sort of like Fight Club's first rule (don't talk about Fight Club), the most important rule is to act like the rules don't exist. Always.

On our trip to Texas, I had a great time at dinner with three other women. We got to talking about very personal stuff, which was fun. It turned out that I was the only one of us who was "popular" in high school. They were not "popular" but had friends, were liked, and were relatively happy (as happy as teenagers can be, I suppose). As I told them, my move into popularity was entirely calculated.

In the seventh grade, when I was not popular (but was happy), I read a book with my best friend about how to become popular. Yes. I read a book. I did what it said I should do. One of those things was to ditch all of my current friends. And, I did. By the eighth grade, I had all new friends. My new best friend was captain of cheerleading in our senior year of high school. That's the easiest shorthand to prove my street cred as a popular kid.

Still, I always described myself as a "floater" (which for some reason now only calls up images of poop in the toilet or dead rotting bodies on a cold river) as I never felt totally connected to any social circle. Maybe sometime I'll blog about the wide range of people I socialized with as I find it fascinating how labels were so important to me then. For now, though, I want to talk about popularity.

You see, it's been years since I even thought about it. In my twenties, when I started recovering from alcoholism, I rediscovered myself. Back to the pre-popularity days, mostly. I retained some of the qualities I'd developed as I grew up. But I stopped following the rules. The rules the popular kids won't talk about. Lots of us didn't know they existed. I'm mostly aware of them because of that silly book in seventh grade and, much moreso, because of hindsight.

The reason I bring this up is popularity, it turns out, is (using the world lightly) addictive. Compelling. I've been exploring different social scenes than I used to as we move towards being fully divorced (our marriage is over, but we're still roommates). I came across this rambunctious group of people (online) who are clearly today's popular kids.

When I talk about popular kids I'm not talking about the most talented, the most successful, or the most beautiful. I'm talking about those people who think they are The Shit and that their friends are The Shit and who know what The Rules are to be Cool. As adults, it's nice to know that some qualities of substance (it seems) are required. But, wow, I've found that some of the same old rules really apply:

1) Pretend you don't like anyone. It's really funny, you see, to be bitter and cynical and hate people.

2) If someone makes a joke that offends you? Laugh it off. Making a fuss is never acceptable. FUCKING RELAX, they'll say. Or they'll talk about you behind your back as someone who takes things way too seriously.

3) Never admit to your insecurities, unless you do so in an entirely clever or self-deprecating way. It's okay to admit insecurities if they are really compliments to yourself couched as insults.

4) Once someone's voted off the island anyone who sticks with that person is automatically suspect. Sort of a version of cooties.

The list goes on, of course. And let me be clear. When I talk about popularity I'm talking about status. Seeking status. Typically through the belittling of others. Most of us as adults find friends and people we like because they have qualities we respect or enjoy. It was a shocker to me to find out that people in their 30s, 40s, even 50s and 60s are still playing the social climbing game.

Take the Twitter "star" culture. I mean both using stars to "favorite" tweets and also people becoming Twitter celebrities. Among those people who are seeking the external validation of stars, there is a large group who I would describe as "popular." I mean that in a shallow, ugly, and unkind way. Briefly, I was sucked into the games. I felt myself adjusting my voice, pretending my feelings weren't hurt, that sort of thing. Tweeting in ways that made me "likable" to the "right" kinds of people. Paying attention to who was "important." Becoming not me in a very minor way. It's seductive, though. I could be good at it again, if I chose to.

Instead, I'm returning to my core. I won't assume all of these "popular kids" are vapid, insensitive, or insincere. I'll take each person as they come. As I interact with them I'll weed out the people who get upset if I "can't take a joke" (about rape, for example, or fat women). I'll be honest if my feelings are hurt. I'll compliment people without expectations of rewards, and I'll be free expressing my joy.

The draw into the dark world of the Popular kids was surprisingly strong. I'm still not entirely sure I'll even linger around the edges. I don't want to accidentally get sucked in. So, for now, I'll just say, "Hi, I'm Heather, a Recovering Popular Kid" and I'm just going to be real.

Twitter, No Auto-followbacks

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Mon, 17 May 2010 01:02:00 +0000

I'm reposting this from an old blog. I realized the link in my Twitter profile brought people to that old, unused and, frankly, stupid blog. So, this is the explanation for why I don't automatically follow back. I refuse to read it now or I'll spend time I don't have editing it and correcting it. It may or may not hold true today as it did in May 2009.

who are the people in my twitterverse?

Note: As I was writing this I considered defining Twitter terms, explaining them to help readers who don't use Twitter. Instead of doing that, I'll post this link that discusses the basics of Twitter.

A few days ago I met a very cool woman whose Twitter name is @choley. She was funny, sweet, and she and my husband (@jdenkmire) have a lot in common. As we sat eating ice cream I began an argument with myself (in my head). I knew then I didn't want to follow her on Twitter, though I couldn't say that to her at the time. I did lay the groundwork, though, explaining in a blurty and rambly way that I don't follow many people and that it would be possible if I followed her I might unfollow her. This is the kind of thing that I worry a little bit about. Did she take that personally? I consider this but I have to let it go. It definitely wasn't about her. It's just that that's not how I use Twitter.

Over the past six months or so I've gotten into tweeting. I've found the challenge of 140 characters a lot of fun. I like resisting the urge to Tweet only the banal and tediously ordinary as I try to stay slightly creative or at least, random. What interests me in the tweets I read are just those things, the element of surprise, randomness, entertainment. I like to read the same kinds of things I like to share (though I count on the tweets I read to be funnier than those I send out!). No doubt about it, I also tend to slip over to Twitterrific to post very mundane bits and thoughts. As I said, I try to resist that urge but am definitely not always successful.

I've written before about the labels some people place on certain kinds of Twitter users. Even with my low numbers, some might call me a "Twitter Snob." There are real social rules in Twitter, some quite mainstream (using #hashtags, for example), and some specific to smaller subcultures. I happen to be someone who doesn't seek out followers. More touchy, however, is the fact that I almost never follow-back. I don't fall into the camp of those who believe it's polite to follow back, so they almost always do.

When I first started using Twitter I added the small handful of people I already knew were using it (like my husband and our friends from Houston). I looked at Josh's tweets and picked out a few of those folks to follow (like @videosawyer and @amycasey). Josh was getting really into it. I wasn't. I didn't see the appeal and was much more interested in Facebook. His list of followeds and followers grew and grew. He's got around 250 followeds and followers now. Among some Tweeple that number is actually low. Compare that to my about 50 followeds and about 100 followers and I'm not even close to being a real player in the Twitterverse. (I don't even need a system like Tweetdeck to sort my incoming tweets.)

But as I talked with this super nice local woman over ice cream, why did I know I didn't want to follow her?

I figured it out. There are two issues related to why I don't do much following. In the case of the local woman, it was because she was local that I didn't want to follow her. I don't use Twitter to find new friends. I don't want new friends. I don't have time for more people in my life. I don't mean this at all to be unfriendly. It's just practical. I've got some very close friends offline and a few good ones online, too. I just had a baby. I've got an almost-six year old, a husband, a business with active clients, a rental property to manage. As I write this I realize just how taboo it is to say out loud, "I don't want to know you" to people, even to an anonymous Internet based "you." By following local people it will become more and more awkward if, let's say, I want to unfollow someone. If I've met someone offline how would it not be insulting to unfollow them? Following local people creates a sense of community. I see that as Josh gets more involved (hear him on Monday in his second appearance on the Word on the Tweet podcast). There are great advantages to what Twitter can do in bringing people together in their offline worlds.

But that's just not how I use Twitter.

It's not just the locals I mostly avoid. I've already got my online friends there (like @PaulaLight and @SourGrapes). It's only very rarely that the mood strikes me to start following a new regular person, like @EmmaJaneR (who was recently described as "a normal" by @lucypepper (who I consider to be a bit of an Internet star, though I don't follow her)). When I do start following a regular person, I frequently change my mind after just a day or two. It's not that I have some high fallutin' standard they need to meet, it's just my need to keep the stream simple.

I've got a handful of celebrities (perfect for me: entertaining and random like @robcorddry or @michaelianblack) and a few information Tweeters like @theonion or @eatmedaily. Too many more, regular or otherwise, will make me feel cluttered and overwhelmed. Even the few I've got can be too much at times (it's been ages since I've clicked a link shared by The Onion).

Again, I'm not looking to make new connections. I was talking through all these things with Josh the other day and I think he nailed it, helped me figure out what I'm trying to do with Twitter (or, what I'm trying to avoid). Despite my outgoing personality and openly sharing online expressions, I am an intensely private person. I don't let many people in to my life. The way I use Twitter is a good example of how I need to control the gates. I need space. I need to control (ah! the therapist's favorite word!) who gets in to my life. Having an audience for my tweets (followers) is one thing. It's fine. It's flattering, really (even those who have thousands, if they don't unfollow me, I'm amazed). I sometimes even consider going out and finding followers just because it tickles me to know people are reading my tweets. But, again, I have no desire to follow more people. I have enough to read. I have enough people I want to know about on a regular basis. Any more and I might completely lose my mind.

It shouldn't be an insulting thing, though, that I don't want to follow you. A great part of why I don't want to follow you is because you might be interesting. I might want to take the time to read your tweets, respond to them, and learn even more. I can't add more to my life right now. Of course, I haven't built any walls, so some people will get in. That's fine. But there's got to be a limit. I have a great time tweeting. I hope people enjoy (or are able to ignore or feel free to unfollow) my tweets. I get a kick out of the tweets I get to read every day from the 10 folks who tweet of the fifty or so I follow.

I'm happy with my Twitterhood. Are you happy with yours? What's your Twitter method/style?

.
Of course, if you use Twitter and want to follow me, please feel free. :-)

Read Me.

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sat, 15 May 2010 02:37:00 +0000

No.

No. I will not read you. I won't read the instructions. I won't even open the manual. There's a how-to? Forget it. Great information you can share with me that I might learn from? Hush now.

I learn by doing. If I'm told, or read it, or see it, it doesn't stick. I have to do it.

The other day my Mom* mentioned the rows my Dad dug in the garden for me were wide enough to plant two things along it instead of the one set I was doing down the middle. She was totally pissed off when I dismissed what she was saying. What I couldn't articulate (beyond a less than satisfying, perhaps even more infuriating for her, "I'm in the moment, here, sorry...") was: I can't deal with instructions. Advice. Good information. Unless it's on my time. If I'm seeking information it's because it will fit in with my timing. My learning process.

For a long time I thought I had some stubborn control issues. And, sure, that's true in part. Like, on some level I need to prove I can best that machine or that piece of IKEA furniture by assembling it or running it without any guidance. But that's only a peripheral aspect of my refusing instructions.

In grad school (just two semesters) I began understanding what this is all about. We studied a bit of Howard Gardner's Multiple (at the time there were 7) Intelligences. I won't go research it to get it right here, but I think there was one called kinesthetic... something like that. It had to do with moving while learning. I assumed that wasn't me because I'm innately a couch potato. But I found myself absorbing lecture material in deeper ways if I used my colored pencils to doodle obsessively while listening. I was moving, even though it was just my hand.

Without the curve the teacher used at the end of the year, I would have failed AP Calculus in high school. It baffled me that I could completely and totally follow what the teacher was saying as he wrote on the board, but then I'd nearly fail the tests. I didn't do a whole lot of homework, you see. I felt like I really understood it (and, honestly, there was a lot of pot smoking to be done) so I didn't actually try it myself much. Faced with problems on the test my mind went blank. Things seemed familiar, but I couldn't get the right ideas to connect.

I was thinking about this refusal to use instructions and the requirement that I do learning rather than receive learning as I was gardening. I've already successfully killed many seedlings. I planted them too early. I didn't "harden them off" first. I watered them too much or too little (don't know). I have acidic or base-ic (?!?!) soil that needs...something... But I don't care. I'm going to keep on doing this all "by feel" as is my way. Most of it won't work out too well, except where I'm lucky. When that luck happens, I'll try to recreate it next year. As I go, if I find myself wanting to know more or understand more I'll ask my font of knowledge mother or I'll google it or spend time with the library books I got out.

Learning by doing. It's the only way it's fun for me. It's the only way that works (for me).

*Mom, since I know you'll be reading this. I expect to plant *something* (small) at angles near those broccoli plants. I just don't know what, yet. I might leave them taking up too much space, too, because it'll look so pretty. So, thank you for all the help you've already given me (organic fertilizer pellets, something-enriched water to help roots grow, copper to go around Maya's lily plants)—sorry I can't take in the help you offer when you offer it. I do try, even if it just seems like I'm being a total jerk. :-)

How Bigots Changed My Life

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Tue, 11 May 2010 02:46:00 +0000

Debating issues with those who hold positions almost entirely opposite to my own opened my eyes. Or, my ears. Or, my heart?

I used to be of the mind that bigots, racists, sexists, etc. shouldn't be tolerated. Zero tolerance of harmful language and behavior was the only way to stop it.

Letting ignorant statements go by without comment is still unacceptable for me. However, hearing through people's language to their deeper meanings has been more fruitful for me in the last year or so. It's why I'm afraid for our country, though.

Simplifying the very complex:

We are stuck in a loop that backs up on itself and will only lead to destruction, death, and continued oligarchy if we don't choose different paths.
The radical right (authoritarian/strict father morality) has convinced many conservatives and moderates that progressives (empathetic/nurturing parent morality) are condescending "liberal elites" who think we know best for everyone.
Progressives (empathetic/nurturing parent morality) have fallen prey to the frames of the radical right, too, and are afraid to take strong moral stands on any issues. We're wimps because of it.
Progressives (empathetic/nurturing parent morality) live our lives wanting to help other people and we have the view that there's no such thing as our own bootstraps (everyone is interdependent) so we want to be sure there's a level playing field. We come off as thinking we know what's best for everyone despite our best intentions.

Real conservatives and moderates recognize the need for balance just like real progressives do. Not compromising our most treasured values, but not shooting ourselves in the collective foot either.

Opening my mind to hear what I might otherwise have missed (through misspelled racist signs, for example) has taught me a lot. I recognize now how my perspective seems condescending and high 'n' mighty, just like the radical right wants them to seem. I also recognize places where my views overlap with the most extreme of the extremists. Free speech, for example. Or dislodging and destroying the Wall Street/DC revolving doors. A bit messier, but still worth pursuing is the idea of not inflicting personal morality on individuals via the state.

It used to be I'd hear people talking about being "open minded" or "tolerant" about different viewpoints and I'd be sure they were compromising their values. I now believe the only way to know what our shared values are as a nation is if we all shut up and take turns listening to each other. Really listening. Hearing.

Battling The Beauty Myth

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sun, 09 May 2010 11:06:00 +0000

How do I help my daughter's manage the effects of The Beauty Myth? It's a great question. So compelling I'm interrupting my Mother's Day sleep-in option to write up a quick response.

We started by minimizing the role of gender in their little lives as much as possible. We didn't teach our first daughter the words "boy" or "girl" until she learned them herself—we used child in almost every case.

We chose gender neutral clothing and toys as much as possible. This is a serious challenge. Even making the attempt is an eye opener.

Why? It's my belief that gender is a social construction. Sadly, part of that social construction in our culture involves teaching girls to rely on their prettiness, sweetness, their delicate nature. In fact, it's amazing how people respond to our babies when they wear gender neutral clothing (such as an orange onesie and green pants) mistaking them for boys. "Oh, what a strong boy you are! What a tough little man you are! You can do anything you want, can't you!" (Literal quotes from some time I spent in the park last week.) When they can tell they are girls the voice tones change to coo-ing sounds and the comments are almost all about prettiness. This is almost without exception, even among the hippie crunchy types of Whole Foods.

Once our older daughter started asking questions about gender we opened up the subject for discussion. We noted characters in books. We pointed out that it wasn't clear (if it wasn't) if a picture was of a boy or a girl. Why did she think it was a boy? Why a girl?

Now that she's nearly seven she brings up that subject quite a bit. One of her favorite conversations revolves around the "boy things" or "girl things." She loves pointing out the fact that if she is using "boy" things they're no longer boy things, since she is a girl.

She is critical in her reading, too. She notices things like the girls in the Boxcar Children do the cooking while "the boys get to do all the fun, active stuff like swimming and having adventures."

I've also begun talking with her about the Myth itself. I don't spend a lot of time on it, but I might toss off a comment here or there about how mad I get at the images of women on the magazines at the supermarket. How mad I get that the people who want to sell things try to make me feel like I should look a certain way.

Then there are the times when I put on makeup. Not very common, but I do it for business meetings or special events. We talk about decorating our bodies for special occasions or to feel nice. We talk about how wearing clothes that we feel good in (whether that's stretchy pants to move freely or a flowy skirt to feel fancy and breezy) is our choice.

I'm careful not to demonize any choices women make about their own beauty rituals. But, when Maya asks, I talk freely with her. She knows I shave my legs and my armpits. She knows I think it's silly that those body hairs feel "manly" to me, but that I do it anyway. I don't hide the inconsistencies of my choices as it's all quite complicated.

They both happen to be objectively quite beautiful (by mainstream media standards) so they are already pelted quite frequently with gushing praise about their appearances. With our older daughter (and with our younger when she's old enough to understand) we talk about how people enjoy saying nice things about them. We talk about their intent, which is almost always the desire to say things that they think will make the girls feel nice and good. The good intent is there, I explain, even if focusing so much on the prettiness of girls is something we're taught by the people who want to sell us stuff.

When people—and they do—make little jokes about "what a flirt" or "she'll be breaking hearts before you know it!" or, unbelievably, "oh, the boys are going to be after her!" we have good conversations, again, about people's good intentions. But we also talk about hearing ourselves. How do we feel inside when someone talks about us? Our older daughter's teacher focuses on the children hearing their tummies. Does it feel good in your tummy? Why or why not? (This applies to anything that might be uncomfortable.)

So, how I help my daughters manage the effects of The Beauty Myth... this post is just a beginning. It mostly boils down to helping them develop a critical eye, critical thinking skills, and language to discuss these things. I also try to teach them and model for them an awareness of appreciating their bodies for what they can do with them; that knowing who they are inside is the most valuable skill they can practice.

Greenspan and the Mythic Market

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sun, 09 May 2010 02:25:00 +0000

A more involved post will follow at some point tying together several of the themes I've been interested in lately. For now I'll share just a few thoughts after finishing "Maestro," by Bob Woodward. He made a compelling story out of what was essentially a recounting of the ups and downs of the interest rates. Of course, the story was much more. But a great (as in large, not as in fabulous) part of the book was, "the FOMC met, Greenspan wanted to ease/raise the rates 1/4/make no move, the committee agreed." Woodward put enough inside information and real story telling about Greenspan in there to make what might have been a snooze-fest interesting.

It fascinated me to find how much I felt Greenspan and I have in common. Woodward's descriptions of Greenspan's personality, his theories about politics and power, his socializing. Of course it wasn't until the end of his time at the Fed that he came even slightly close to my opinions about regulations or the value of income reaching not just Wall Street. But, he did start getting there.

As for my title here, the "Mythic Market" I believe I'll have to leave that to another more thorough post. I'm skeptical of anyone who takes humanity out of economic discussions.

Suffice it to say for now that it was a bit ominous hearing about the interconnectedness of Wall Street with DC. The book ended the story in 2000 (it was published in 2001) and there had already been significant meetings between Fed leadership and Wall Street bankers to bail out the hedge fund LTCM, foreshadowing the horrific precedent that the Fed would bail out Wall Street. LTCM was the first (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was the first) of the "too big to fail" problematic institutions to have the Fed hand hold the situation to get enough capital back into the system so there wouldn't be serious bank runs and collapsing markets. Taking on too much risk wasn't a big deal anymore for any institution large enough to matter to the Fed after that. The market and all its "corrective powers" (ha!) were screwed up because risk wasn't risky anymore. Look where it got us.

Mothering

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Fri, 07 May 2010 02:04:00 +0000

In Houston I once asked to see a woman's baby who was in a sling. The woman yanked the sling down quickly and exposed her full breast as her baby popped off. At the time, this kind of freaked me out. Was she trying to make me uncomfortable? She wasn't, of course. She was simply a part of a culture I hadn't been...exposed to, yet. Mothering.

Later she told me about this magazine, Mothering. Until that time in 2000 or 2001 I always considered the meaning of "mothering" to be micro-managing, hovering, smothering, nagging. Totally negative. That magazine led me to Henci Goer's "Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth" and to all sorts of wonderful and amazing lessons about alternatives to mainstream parenting. But alternative choices in parenting isn't what I want to write about today. I've read a lot, I've talked to a lot of parents, I've spent a lot of time in online communities. I am familiar with labels that increase the odds a parent might have something in common with me as far as parenting goes. But the only thing that really guides me in parenting is my gut. My heart. My soul. Some deeper part of me that has no words.

In the last week I've had more than a handful of people comment that I seem to be doing well. They mean "considering the circumstances" in some ways. But each of them (none of them know each other) referred to a peacefulness or calm about me. And, it's true. I'm deep in the sadness of the divorce. But I also made a decision a few weeks ago to return to my parenting roots.

When Maya was a baby I threw financial responsibility out the window so I could be with her. I've been lucky enough (or unlucky enough my parents or others might say) to have the attitude that "things will always work out." With our first baby it was so clear to me that the only thing that mattered in my life—and I mean the only thing—was my daughter.

Our second baby, Althea, who turned a year old a few weeks ago has a lot in common with her sister. She's deeply, deeply interested. Almost everyone she comes in contact with comments on the intensity of her gaze. She is different, of course, as well. She giggles and laughs a lot. Maya was always more serious.

The other day I was doing some errands with Althea in the car. Maya was off at school. As I got Althea in or out of the carseat I remembered how with Maya I never, ever went from one stop to the next without pausing in between. We probably spent hours in the car, her on my lap or standing on the passenger side. Talking to each other, looking out the window, snuggling, nursing. Always slow. We took our time and rarely rushed. It was my belief, and still is, that rushing children is something I like to reserve for those times when we really have to. Just like yelling or being really, really seriously firm/hard-ass about things. If I keep those to times when I really mean it, they have a lot more impact and usefulness.

So, a few weeks ago, I decided to slow down. I decided Althea needs more time like I gave to Maya. Peace. Slow. Touching tree bark, plucking dandelions. Pointing at leaves blowing in the wind, grabbing dirt. The textures, smells, sounds, and feelings of life. Slowly. With care.

Life is different these days, of course. Josh moves out in a month and a half. I've had to crank up my work schedule. Maya's finding things worrisome (divorce related, definitely) and her anxiety is palpable. She needs lots and lots of Mommy, too. I've done the same with her. Slowed down. We're not trying to get so many things done. We're letting things slide. We spent a lot of time with sidewalk chalk after a rainstorm on the driveway a few days ago. (There's a movie of some of it here, though the framing is ridiculous as most of the time our heads were cut off. :-) Just being. Letting go of things like staying clean, or following rules, or having some ultimate goal. Being present, in the moment, in pure joy.

Parenting is a talent, a calling, a vocation that fits me perfectly. There is nothing I enjoy more with such frequency. The depth of the pleasure I feel in those moments when we are slow and still together, or when we're all in a rhythm of getting what needs to get done, done... It's like art for me. There's a flow that happens more often than not. A grand orchestration, a weaving of connections. Love, interest, time, appreciation... Mothering.

freedom, democracy, liberty, responsibilities

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Thu, 06 May 2010 22:41:00 +0000

Do you love progressive values like freedom, liberty, empathy, responsibility? Do you want to save our country, the republic, our freedom?

Please listen to this:

http://audio.commonwealthclub.org/audio/podcast/cc_20081014_inforum_wolf.mp3

Thank you.

Audio Books and Our Oligarchy

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Sun, 02 May 2010 01:20:00 +0000

I'm almost finished with 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown and it's been a drag. Of course, some of it is just zone out content. Only This American Life/Planet Money could make any sense out of this stuff for non-experts like me. But, please, audio book makers. For the love of all things holy, would you listen to your voice talent before you say "okay" to booking them? It's excruciating.

That said, the content that wasn't a snooze fest has been pretty compelling. Right in line with my passion for reframing political discussions from a progressive values point of view, the book explains how we are living under the rule of an oligarchy. That has to change. Progressives value fair competition, not the kind of competition where tricking customers is rewarded and honesty decreases market share.

Goodwill had a copy of Bob Woodward's Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom which was published in 2001. Almost a decade before Greenspan ate the humble pie. I must find that congressional testimony on YouTube. I think the Greenspan book ought to tie together some of the loose ends after the Ayn Rand biography and all of this great brain science stuff I've been devouring. After I finish the Woodward book, I'll be back with more. You can count on it.

Wordless Wednesday #19

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:11:00 +0000

tea party movement = return to monarchy

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:34:00 +0000

In case anyone thought my desperate plea that progressives stop calling the Tea Party movement members names meant I support their positions, let me get very clear: If our nation continues down the radical right path the Tea Party movement espouses, we are doomed. Our nation will not survive if the radical right frames continue dominating our discourse and ruling our nation.

I'm not exaggerating. I believe people will be killed over these issues (different understandings of liberty, freedom, leadership, strength), and soon. Our republic is already so far gone from what our founders intended only massive action on the part of progressives—not just anyone—will save us.

When I say "progressives," I mean people who believe corporations shouldn't be running the government. When I say "progressives" I mean people who believe it's government's job to protect the people and that doesn't only mean through military might. I mean people who believe freedom means the government doesn't have the right to listen in on private phone conversations or email exchanges. People who believe the right to free speech should not include filing paperwork three weeks in advance and paying non-refundable application fees for permits that may or may not be granted. People who believe free speech doesn't mean "we can stand five hundred feet away from the entrance to that building behind those trees when we demonstrate against this issue." I mean people who believe anyone who wants to should be able to run for political office without spending thousands of dollars to consultants for the privilege of understanding just how the fuck the paperwork works. When I say "progressives" are the only people who are going to save our country, I mean people who realize that America's legacy is one of responsibility, not laziness. Hard work, not handouts—the Tea Party people believe individual freedoms trump everything else, that we're given the "right" to individual because we're Americans. What a load of hooey.

The Tea Party movement people mostly all live within the radical right frames. This means they, for the most part believe in strict father morality rather than nurturing parent morality.

The morality of the strict father model—individual freedom, individual responsibility, hierarchical power structures—will only lead us to a nation, a world, where corporations, greed, wealth, corruption, and violence dominate. It is only through a nurturing parent model of morality—cooperation, empathy, interdependence, strength, freedom, and responsibility—that our republic and the liberty we were founded on have any chance of surviving.

Just because I believe we progressives are shooting ourselves in the foot every time we solidify the radical right's frames (when we call the Tea Party people names) doesn't mean I believe the Tea Party people are right. In fact, they are dangerously misguided. But if those of us who believe in the Golden Rule don't get off our asses, we're going to end up with a monarchy whose only active voices are the megacorporations who are running things now.

Progressive Values, Using Progressive Frames

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:43:00 +0000

It's been a beast of a challenge trying to articulate progressive values using progressive frames. But, guess what, folks? It's been done! In Give Me Liberty: An Handbook for American Revolutionaries. By the time I was 1/3 of the way through the book it was clear it's a home run. Knocked clear out of the park, over the Green Monster, or whatever would make it a spectacular GRAND SLAM.

One of the most challenging things I've learned in these blog posts where I try to convey the information I've learned about how our brains work, how our minds work, how our values are formed, is that it's very very difficult to discuss progressive values using progressive frames without also mentioning the radical right's frames. And, since the radical right frames have dominated our nation since the late 60s/early 70s redefining or taking back the definitions of key words like freedom, liberty, and protection is especially difficult. Merely mentioning those frames, even to dispute them, reinforces them in our brains. So I've been trying to avoid them.

Naomi Wolf does it, my friends. She's found a way to discuss progressive values without any use of radical right frames. She dives deeply into the "founding fathers" and the intent of the framers and goes on to dissect how liberty is being destroyed. She also provides a plan of action for those of us willing to face the truth about our great nation: we weren't handed "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" so we could go off and live our independent lawn mowing magazine reading lives. We were given the responsibility to fight for that liberty whenever it is threatened. If we want to be Americans, in the greatest sense of the word, we must be activists protecting our freedoms.

Read this book, progressives (or moderates or if you refuse a label or if you're just interested or if you're anything but a radical right wing fanatic). I found it inspirational and even life-changing.

eta. Wolf refers to the radical right's version of liberty and patriotism as "fake." She doesn't address the validity for those living within right wing frames of those versions of the concepts. However, since we are daily surrounded by only those radical right's frames, I believe her perspective is desperately needed.

Really, We're Friends

noreply@blogger.com (SereneBabe) — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:49:00 +0000

In my free time (har har har) I'm writing a book proposal. It's clear to me that there is a gap in the market. A real one. As Josh and I went public with our plans to divorce and I went a bit manic with publicly explaining that "everything is okay!!!!" I found out our situation is a lot more common than I thought. Within just a few weeks I met three couples who co-parent with ex-husbands or ex-wives who are, really, friends. One of my best friends from high school told me she's in exactly the same situation. They are friends, not husband and wife.

Perhaps it's a generational thing. Most of us are in our late 30s/early 40s. My dearest older friends and (I think) my parents don't understand. I empathize with the confusion. It was only a year or so ago that I was entirely convinced that if there was any friendship there, that should be enough to sustain a marriage. We did, after all, commit our lives to each other.

The reason I want to write a book, though, is because that's not all a marriage is or should be. For each of our unique experiences, we couples who are really friends are not meant to be wives and husbands to each other. And out there in the big wide world, there are no books, no websites even! to provide support.

Of course, I can gleen bits and pieces here and there to guide us. But overall, I have to wade through loads and loads and loads of "how to get along" or "how to behave respectfully toward each other for the sake of the children." It's exhausting, frankly.

I came from the school of "divorce should be difficult to make happen so people stick with it through the hard times" and have moved into the school of "divorce is fucking difficult as it is, people need support as we go through it." I believe it's a new world out there. Marriage is being redefined in many circles. As I told my parents who believe—as so many people do—divorce breaks families that in our case, it only changes ours.

We're going on vacation together as a family next week. We'll see old friends. It is my hope that people won't be too put off by our splitting up and will recognize that not everyone fits into the traditional mold.

As for the book, I believe it would sell very well. I've got a lot of work to do on it, though. Mostly giving up on Facebook and socio-political discussions (save blogging) has freed up a lot of my time. But what's left goes to mothering, household running, and that little bitty thing called making a living. So, it will take time. And, honestly, it's very difficult for me to get motivated to put together the whole thing without a guaranteed payoff. Have you ever seen what's expected for a full-blown book proposal? It's pretty much the bulk of the writing work, or, maybe 40% of it. If you know of any publishers who would be wowed by my great idea with only a few pages of sell, please let me know. I'm totally confident based on my teensy tinesy bit of market research that this gap needs filling.

If you hang out with us, or see us around, please know that we do care for each other deeply. We are also divorcing and won't be married. We will co-parent our beautiful children. We will work out finances and eventually totally split them. We're on that path. But we're also in no rush. We're going to do this strategically, pragmatically, and in a way that's best for all of us involved. In any case, really, we are friends. Thanks for trying to understand.