The Lost Art of Self-Preservation (for Women)

Detroit, city of delusion, dysfunction and despair

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:31:00 +0000

On Sunday The Detroit News published a follow up story on Texana Hollis, the 101-year-old woman who was evicted from her home last fall (Evicted Detroiter: '100 years old, and don't have a home'). According to this piece, which conflicts somewhat with previous articles, Texana lost her home because of a $7K property tax bill. She and her husband had paid off the mortgage on her home long ago, but in 2002, Texana's son Warren convinced her to take out a reverse mortage for $32,000. " By 2006, the amount paid to the family exceeded the value of the house, and HUD took control of the mortgage." Texana was sent numerous warnings about the impending foreclosure, but her son Warren threw them all away. When HUD finally foreclosed, tossed the Hollises' belongings into dumpsters, and left Texana on the sidewalk, a media furor erupted, so HUD backed down and told the elderly Hollis that she could live in the home for as long as she needed to. However, upon evaluating the property, HUD found it both unsafe and unsanitary - unsuitable for human habitation - and reneged on their offer.

In the interim Hollis has been taken in by Pollian Cheeks, a member of her church who cares for her in her home. The Detroit News waxes eloquently over Cheeks charitable nature, but in fact the State of Michigan pays Cheeks $8 an hour, 30 hours per week to provide Hollis care. It appears that while Cheeks and Hollis are both satisfied with the arrangement, Hollis's son isn't. He and his brother no longer have anyone to defraud and mooch off of, and they want HUD to make good on their promise. In fact, they want HUD to go in and clean up and fix the property so that ~~Texana~~ Warren and Ira Hollis can move back in.

Warren Hollis said his mother might be better off living with Cheeks and her family. But he wants her back in her home. "She's satisfied here, but I'm not satisfied with her being here," he said.

The article itself exudes a strong entitlement ethos, but the comments section is a goldmine of entitlement - everyone should step up to the plate to help this old lady get back into her home. Suggestions include Habitat for Humanity, Bank of America, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, HUD, the Republican Party, the City of Detroit, and just random anybody.

"Why can't some rich people give some of their rich people money to help this dear old soul get back into her home? Is this the American Way?"

Again - Texana Hollis is now being cared for around the clock in the (one assumes) safe and sanitary home of a neighbor on the state's dime. So what exactly is the American Way?

To fix up houses that have been grossly neglected by their owners so they can be reoccupied and neglected again?
To provide free housing for grown men who have failed to care for and, in fact, have defrauded their mothers of their entire net worth?
To waive property taxes because "after a person pays her property taxes for all those years, there comes a time when you need to say, enough"
To give poor people free stuff?

The consensus seems to be #4.

It might be worthwhile for a private or neighborhood organization to work to get this woman back into her home if 1) she could care for herself and the property 2) if the felonious, neglectful sons were not in the picture and if 3) the property itself had some value. But this is Detroit. Houses there sell for hundreds - yes, HUNDREDS - of dollars. Even kept up, this property is worth less than $10,000. It would be a huge waste of federal monies for HUD to restore it, and, once restored, it certainly would not remain so. Remember, HUD - HUD! - has declared it unsafe for human habitation. Whether this means that someone used the basement for an outhouse or there are 30 cats in the upstairs bedrooms or mounds of trash blocking every exit or gaping holes in the floor, we don't know, but something there is deeply wrong, and the sons let it get that way. It doesn't cost much money to keep things clean. The neighborhood is undoubtedly pockmarked with burned out houses and vacant lots where homes once stood. Detroit can't afford to fix it up for her. They can't afford to send someone out there to look at it. They can't keep their lights on because their citizenry keeps stealing the copper wire from the streetlamps.* They are paying their local police with federal grant money. They can't keep the money they do get from the state and federal governments from being passed directly to thieves and fraudsters. They can't keep their murder rate below one per day. Yes, their property taxes are grossly out of line given the fact that they offer virtually no city services, but property tax amnesty is a pipe dream. They cannibalize their citizens to cover the outlandish pension promises they made and keep the city from descending into utter anarchy. Also, the city council's Escalades are now the 2011 model, so that also needs to be addressed.

No one who values their money would give it to "right this wrong." The state is currently paying for Texana and people like Texana to get the care they need. This is an unsustainable trend, however, and not just for Detroit. Families and communities offered a stronger, better social safety net than our future governments will. We should all be working recreating whatever social safety nets we can.

*The Detroit News has apparently deleted the original article. This link quotes from it.

Piece of Advice #100: Don't rationalize bad mothering

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 04:18:00 +0000

Redbook offers its modern readership the classily titled piece,"WTF" Working Mom Moments! in which Paula Szuchman and Kate Ashford advise working mothers to forget about the guilt even when committing rather egregious neglect. Because nothing - really, nothing - is more important than the paid work/personal satisfaction combo feminists have been touting to women for forty years.

An excerpt:

A few weeks back, I dropped my daughter, Ida, off with a neighbor and rushed to work. This is the sum total of what I know about the woman I entrusted with my 18-month-old's life: Her name is Lisa, she lives on my block, and she has two kids. I didn't — still don't — know her last name, and I forgot to take her phone number with me to the office. I had chatted with her a few times in passing, on my way to our neighborhood park, and she'd nicely offered to babysit. So when my nanny called in sick at the last minute, I took her up on it.

During my commute to work that day, I couldn't believe I had left my kid with a stranger. If I'd stayed home, would the office have come to a standstill? No. Would I have been fired on the spot for taking a day off? Unlikely. But in the panic of that morning, all I could think about was the giant to-do list waiting at my desk, the inconvenience I'd cause my boss, and, most importantly, the shame of failing to manage my personal life in a way that didn't interfere with my job.

It's as if the day I became a mother I'd made some tacit agreement to never let my new, non-paying job interfere with the one that gives me a salary. How hopeful I was — and how very wrong. I had no idea that life with kids would be so messy and unpredictable, so marked by those WTF moments when the urge to be a perfect employee and the urge to be a perfect mom rush at each other in a game of chicken. Inevitably, one of them goes screaming off the track.

Most of the time, it's only a temporary derailment. Your boss forgives you and your kid forgives you. What's tougher is forgiving yourself.

A sample situation in which I, grerp, would consider giving a stranger complete and total access to my son without getting her name and contact information: The world as we know it collapses, there is violence in the streets, order breaks down, and police go door to door rounding up people of my racial/religious/socioeconomic group to be taken to an unknown location for indefinite detention.

That's about it. No hyperbole. The nanny-calling-in-sick scenario doesn't even come close to making this action responsible or acceptable.

I get that women work. I understand that with the terrible economy and the breakdown of the family, women often have to work. I also understand that child care is expensive and often inconvenient and that parents frequently have to take what they can get and punt when things come up. My family tree is filled with women who worked when their children were young. Both my grandfathers were seriously disabled for periods of time, and my grandmothers stepped up to the plate. My mother worked and worked outside of the home after I was 10. This is not a working mothers vs. stay-at-home mothers rant. This is a rant about putting first what should always be put first - your child's safety.

The above woman didn't have to leave her daughter with a stranger. She chose to. She didn't want to miss work. She didn't want people to know that she doesn't have everything in her life under control. And she probably didn't really want to stay home with Ida that day. So she chucked her daughter into the arms of a women she didn't anything about and punched in. And, having done so, she doesn't want to feel guilty about it. So she writes the above, "Who's with me?" manifesto. And women cheer her on because, well, we've all been there, haven't we?

What feminists do not acknowledge (but do know) about the work/motherhood dilemma is that it's not really much of a dilemma. If you screw up at work, you will be fired. To be fired from motherhood, you have to fail spectacularly and repeatedly, and this failure will have to be noticed and documented by teachers, social workers, police officers, and judges. Therefore, work will always come first because the pushback for failure will be harder and more immediate from a boss. To a child, "normal" will be what Mommy creates for her, even if that's neglect, abuse, chronic selfishness or the less malign flakiness.

What irritates me most about these sorts of articles is the idea that women must jump on the 7-7 treadmill for the betterment of the child, for the fulfillment of the mother. The majority of women out there working aren't doing so because they love it or because it's making their lives richer. They're doing it because they need the money to pay for food and rent. Their jobs aren't glamorous and never will be. They're trapped because of the economy, because of divorce or single motherhood, or because of outstanding student loans. And there is no "work/life" balance. There is only work and then whatever you can get done after work - the same grind people had before the period of the mid-twentieth century American prosperity. Only now Grandma's not living upstairs and can't take care of Baby while Mommy twists together silk flowers or does piecework, so Baby has to be schlepped to an expensive daycare. And children get parked in front of a TV or a game center and stay up all night and eat fast food and gain weight and lose both their ability to pay attention and their ability to interact with real people.

But it's all right in the end because "we become far happier once we accept that most days call for tough decisions." Or something.

Piece of Advice #99: Don't expect only adulation when you attention whore

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:23:00 +0000

So Margaret Cho recently posted pictures on twitter of the new tattoo she got on her butt. And since our social policy has morphed into rewarding people who seek attention in inappropriate ways, she got lots of fawning and compliments. Oh, and a couple of disses.

So as an adult woman her reaction to the bad tweets was, of course, ~~to ignore them~~ ~~to take them as a given for splashing one's asscheek across the interwebs~~ ~~to view them as constructive criticism~~ to throw a tantrum on twitter, using foul language and personal insults, and then to rationalize it fully on Jezebel.

Now, it must be acknowledged that Cho is mentally unstable and absolutely full of rage. Anyone who's seen or read her stuff will know that immediately. I do have sympathy for the mentally ill and for people who have suffered abuse, as she claims to have done.

But then don't post pictures of your butt for everyone in the world to look at if you can't handle a couple of people throwing out insults. And don't treat this as if it's a feminist issue and blather on about how everyone wants to keep ugly women down because conspiracy.

Some people are mean. When you seek attention so desperately, you will get it - good and bad. If you can't handle the bad, go fishing in the local creek where the fish know and love you and will fling themselves at you offering to be dinner. Don't trek to the vast, cold ocean, cast your nets, and then shake your fist at it when it fails to nourish your tender blossom soul.

From the Jezebel comments: "No, it's not tiring because when you ignore violence you're condoning it and really when we're talking about body image and self esteem we really are talking about violence. Leaving negative and hateful comments is, you know, bullying. Not confronting this kind of behavior is why people think that it's OK to make negative comments about a woman's body."

Speech is NOT violence. And critical comments are not abuse. They're pushback. If you can't take the pushback, don't put your stuff out there.

Finally, once again, when women were ladies and acted with decorum, they retained the respect of their communities even when they were no longer sexually attractive. Because they developed and used other skills and abilities that people needed and appreciated. I'm betting I could count the number of insults either of my grandmothers ever endured about their sagging bits on one (closed) hand.

This is why I'm not reading women's fiction anymore

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 16:34:00 +0000

Last night my husband and I watched Something Borrowed, a chick flick made from the book of the same name by Emily Giffin. I read this "smash hit" book when it came out seven or eight years ago. It depressed me then, but I couldn't quite articulate all of the reasons it did, though the themes of cheating and abusive friendship are certainly enough to make it a downer.

The story revolves around Rachel, a thirty-year-old New York lawyer who has been friends with Darcy, a beautiful, shallow, narcissistic PR woman, her whole life. Darcy is engaged to Dex. Rachel has loved Dex since their law school days but didn't have the nerve to tell him before Darcy - fully aware of Rachel's feelings - snapped him up.

The movie opens with Rachel's thirtieth birthday. Darcy throws her a "surprise" party and manages to hog all of the spotlight during it, putting the focus on her upcoming wedding to Dex. Depressed that she is single with no romantic prospects and a job she doesn't like, Rachel drinks too much. When Dex returns to retrieve the purse Darcy left behind, they get to talking and Rachel confesses her long-ago feelings for him. They wind up sleeping together, and thus a conflict is born.

Now, it's obvious that Dex and Rachel should have been the couple all along, that Darcy is a train wreck and will be a terrible wife, and that Darcy has been sabotaging Rachel for years, but watching Rachel and Dex sneak around and then refuse to be honest with themselves, each other, or Darcy is pretty agonizing.

This kind of thing is par for the course for chick lit. Giffin seems to mean to illustrate how female friendships can be complex, but instead of making Rachel jettison her toxic female friend or make a definite decision about Dex at any point before the books' climax, she has her waffle about worrying about her responsibilities to Darcy as a BFF. And, then, at the end when it's clear that she is going to finally choose Dex over Darcy, Giffin soft pedals the betrayal by revealing that Darcy has also been cheating - with Dex's long-time friend Marcus and is actually pregnant by Marcus.

It's all so gray and tawdry. Rachel is basically a nice, albeit very passive, person. A better story would have her slowly realizing Darcy has moved in and taken a number of things Rachel wanted and that her friend is not her friend and should be treated more like an enemy. I mean, it's not like these kinds of relationships don't exist in real life. Why shouldn't women be told to shun bitchy, backstabbing women?

Now, if I recall correctly, the book Rachel wasn't all that pretty - which Ginnifer Goodwin, the actress who plays her, decidedly is. This made the Dex/Darcy pairing more understandable in the book. If you are overshadowed and undercut by a beautiful, bitchy friend your whole life, you are less likely to try to shoot out of your league at a handsome, successful, very rich lawyer. It's pretty much a fantasy that Dex with all his options would be pining for a plain, depressed, thirty-year-old lawyer. But whatever.

The movie and book are full of scenes in which Darcy is getting her partay on and trying to get Rachel to join her. It's a little pathetic watching aging women get wasted and simulate oral sex on the dance floor. They should be beyond that. In a previous age both of these women would be married with children and not floundering about trying to relive college (or bordello work) at thirty.

The only character with some integrity is Ethan, Rachel's friend from childhood, who repeatedly tells her the truth and what an ass she is making of herself. He shares some of her passivity, but is basically decent.

The saddest part of the whole story is that it's only the first of two. The sequel, Something Blue, has a pregnant Darcy escaping her humiliation and running away to London where she comes to terms with her own immaturity and gets rescued by Ethan who, inexplicably, falls for her after she has twins. Darcy was so awful, so self-centered, so promiscuous, so undisciplined that imagining her as a mother or wife was horrifying. I didn't want her to be redeemed and I certainly didn't want her to be rescued. I wanted her to suffer. Really suffer. For a long, long time.

But that's the thing in women's fiction. No matter how bad your decisions are, how many people you've hurt, how many times you've bailed and failed, you can still have a happy ending there and plenty of readers will want that for you.

Awful day

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 03:24:00 +0000

"Pardon me while I use this space to write down my feelings."

*I have modified this post to eliminate specific identifying details of the problem I described.*

Thanks to everyone for the input; it was very helpful initially and the follow-up comments continued to be useful to me. Unfortunately, I have had to delete comments that repeated any detail I gave of the situation. If you don't see your comment here, that is why.

Computer update

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:37:00 +0000

This is for Twenty, who wanted to know.

My first purchase was a Nook Color which almost out of the box I knew I didn't really want. The internet connection was slow, and I am unenthusiastic about paying money to buy new books at full price when I have literally hundreds and hundreds of books in this house I haven't yet read. Fiction and nonfiction, children and adult, SF and fantasy, horror, romance, and classics. I have cookbooks, gardening books, parenting books, books on health and religion, books on Russia, books in Russian, books for homeschooling, business, economics, history, war, Judaism, architecture, old hymnals, a half a shelf of baby name books, and two old encyclopedia sets that neither my husband nor I seem able to part with despite the fact that they are decades outdated. So I think I can pass on the opportunity to pay Barnes and Noble $200 to be able to buy books that are probably not as good as many I've already picked up at garage sales and rummage sales and used book stores for pennies.

The Nook went back.

Then I got a cheap Toshiba laptop which I downloaded iTunes and Overdrive onto which then refused to boot up the next time I turned it on. That went back too and was replaced with new one. I'm typing on that one now. So far it hasn't died (fingers crossed, knock on wood).

I do think that all the advice to get a desktop was really good, but unfortunately there is only one place in the house I could put it without moving tons of furniture around, and it's about the last place I want to sit all day. So for now, I have another inexpensive laptop.

In other news, I have begun the preliminary work for writing a book on the kind of material covered on this blog. I figure if I tell you this, I am somewhat accountable and may actually do it. We will see how that goes. Wish me luck.

Computer advice

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 03:34:00 +0000

So my laptop died for the second time this year. The hard drive is toast, and the computer technician quoted me $229 to replace it due to a scarcity in hard drives caused by flooding in Thailand (?). Since this was the second PoC HP laptop (bought the 1st, got the second, used, as a replacement from the generous in-laws), it hardly seems worth it to put money in at this point.

My husband's laptop is older too and could die anytime. Since we will probably replace that one when it does go and since we've replaced or fixed about everything in our house this year as it died (furnace, water heater, freezer, camera, electrical, multiple repairs on two vehicles, etc.), I'd rather not spend a lot. When asked about tablets, the man at the laptop repair shop recommended I get a Nook Color and add an Android upgrade, making it a tablet for under $300.

I suspect I may have a few computer-savvy readers here. Could you advise? What about netbooks? Are they worth it? I have to have something to run my iTunes on, but I might be able to stumble along on my old laptop, if I can still get it to boot up.

Any help is appreciated. I will read replies, but I have to persuade my handsome husband to lend me his laptop to reply, so I'll be most in read mode. Thanks!

#mencallmethings

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:33:00 +0000

Following the hashtag #mencallmethings on Twitter, I have to wonder - why is it that men never call me things? I mean, if this is a universal experience for women - the constant sexual harassment, the groping, the rape threats, etc. - why am I exempt?

Because the men in my life are actually...really nice. My husband, my father, my father-in-law, my brothers-in-law, my nephew, my cousins, my friends' husbands and boyfriends, my coworkers, the fathers in my cub scout den - they've all treated me with a great deal of respect and have often volunteered to do things for me, stuff like cutting down trees, fixing my floor joists, raking my yard, getting me free mulch.

Men I don't even know well do this too. I asked a neighbor the other day if I might have his wood ash for my garden, and he offered to haul it up there for me all winter so I'd have a nice big pile in the spring. Last week at Target, I bumped into a man when we were in the same aisle. I stepped back, saying, "I'm sorry, you go." He smiled, waved his hand, and insisted I go first. [Contrast this to the two (2) women who cut in line in front of me at this same Target and weren't even embarrassed.] This is not an isolated occurrence. Older men do this all the time for me (younger men are not following this same pattern, it's true; three guesses why).

I really haven't had a problem with street harassment, and I've lived in a number of harsh urban environments. Yes, once years ago I was followed by some guy in a truck when I was wearing a short skirt, and it made me feel a little unsafe. My response was to put the skirt in a drawer and wear more modest clothing. This never happened again.

I'm just throwing this out there - maybe I'm all wrong - but perhaps the reason men treat me well is because I don't call particular attention to myself, I don't make demands, I don't dress provocatively, I'm polite and helpful to them when possible, and I actually like men as a whole. I also deliberately avoid the obvious jerks.

Update: apparently, you don't have to even say mean things to be mean. You just have to not say enough nice things or be supportive enough. Wow, so much expected, so little given. Absurd.

Piece of Advice #98: Ignore the feel-good, modern "wisdom"

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 03:17:00 +0000

So much of this stuff shows up on Facebook being posted and re-posted and "liked." I thought I'd highlight a few.

I covered this in a previous post. It's fine to be proud of being single as long as you take full responsibility for all of your own needs indefinitely. Posting it after posting about how you are looking for a knight in shining armor but keep dating dorks in tinfoil hats is something else.

Translation: "Keep on being quite a lot of trouble and a drain on everyone around you for as long as you want because, you know, no one really minds. And if they do, screw them. You're the one who's hurting. So really wallow in it."

Or: "Don't bother to self-reflect after anyone says anything that could be considered in any way negative about you. They're just jealous/stupid/bigoted/mean. Nothing to learn here. Move on."

"Please keep putting up with my endless drama. One day even I might get tired of it and stop."

"It's harder to find a new person who will listen to me complain than it is to shame an old one into hearing it all one more time."

Once more with feeling: "Don't bother to self-reflect after anyone says anything that could be considered in any way negative about you. They're just jealous/stupid/bigoted/mean. Nothing to learn here. Move on."

"None of this colossal mess is my fault. It was all mean to be."

And last, but certainly not least:

This is so absurd, I get distracted from translating ("You don't call me on my huge, glaring faults, and I won't call you on yours."). Since I am, in fact, the only me, and you are the only you, we could also, in the same spirit, with the same reasoning, say, "You! Yes, you. The one reading this. You are also the ugliest, dumbest, worst, waste-of-space you there ever was. Better get working on that." But that would, of course, be rude.

I wonder, do people have to be smoking stuff to come up with this stuff? Or are we so far gone from actual wisdom that these pithy sayings actually seem to be coming from a place, any place, of truth(iness)?

Piece of Advice #97: Look farther into the future

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 02:40:00 +0000

So I read the Kate Bolick article in The Atlantic that both Dalrock and Susan Walsh have commented on in the past few days, and in my mind I've been juxtaposing it with the posts found over at We Are the 99 Percent.

The thrust of Bolick's piece is that, yes, marriage is dying, but that this is not necessarily bad news for women because serial monogamy and other alternatives to marriage can be just as fulfilling, if not more so. Bolick says that she doesn't regret, at 28, throwing away a relationship that could have been permanent for reasons she is still unable to entirely define, even though no equally enjoyable or promising relationship materialized for her later. (Which makes her quite different in prospective from Lori Gottlieb, also of The Atlantic, whose Marry Him thesis is, more or less, "Any port in a storm," - storm being defined as, "in your mid- to late thirties.")

Bolick tells us that she isn't lonely, that her life is rich and fulfilling and full of friends who support her and offer her their plush digs in which to crash. She doesn't know if she wants children, and the men available to her now are unpalatable. Under those conditions who needs a husband?

The problem with this whole thesis is that while being permanently single may be a fulfilling and rich way for women like Bolick to lead their lives, it doesn't work as well for women who are 1) dumber, 2) poorer, 3) less intrepid/independent or 4) not possessed of generous friends of significant means. And it works really badly for women who want to raise healthy, well adjusted, non-poverty stricken children. The fact is, most women aren't very much like Bolick at all - which is why most women want to get married, because subconsciously they know, despite all the feminist propaganda that portrays marriage as a one-way trap to stifling, abused servitude, that marriage is a good deal for women. Women are smaller, weaker, more risk averse, more comfort seeking, and are rarely the kind of trail-blazing, money-making geniuses who can sit alone atop a heap of money and adulation. Almost all of them will eventually want babies too which will make them physically, emotionally, and financially more vulnerable than women like Bolick.

One of the themes that emerges from the We Are the 99 Percent posts is fear/anxiety. Over and over the posters, the majority of which are women, say they are scared. They don't know what is going to happen. They fear for the future if the government doesn't swoop in with the jobs, the debt forgiveness, and the free healthcare. The fact is that women are already the biggest users of the social safety net in terms of welfare, food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, childcare vouchers, etc. Since they are largely covered for at least the basics of food and housing, what they are essentially demanding, then, is the eradication of risk. All risk.

While the economic situation is very complex, the timing of this tremendous outpouring of fear and despair is not coincidental. We are now at least three generations deep into the destruction of the traditional family. Boomer women came from intact families many of which would provide backup if and when they crashed and burned in their youth. Gen X women had a more fractured family landscape, but previous recessions were not as dire and grandparents often pitched in. Millenials, on the other hand, may come from a family tree with hardly an intact branch. Their Boomer parents can't afford to aid them because they need their own help. Forty percent of Boomer women are single and hardly any of them are adequately prepared for retirement.

I've heard many women say that they don't need men, that they are too much work and that these women value their time, space, and freedom. And it's true that childless women in their middle years may not need husbands. They are still working and most have not had health complications. But with age comes vulnerability. Women of yesteryear knew they could depend on their husbands and children to help them as they aged, if they had done their duty to their families. Who is going to do that for a single woman? A nephew? A good friend? I remember visiting my Great Aunt Lola when she was dying of cancer twenty years ago. Her husband of fifty years, a man I'd known as a rather absent-minded professor, obsessed with books and rather indifferent to the human condition either abstract or practical, tenderly doted on her as she lay on a cot in their small sitting room. Day after day he cared for her as she had cared for him throughout their lives. And when she died and my Uncle Ed became senile and frail, their oldest daughter came and took him into her house and cared for him until he died years later.

Who is going to tenderly care for the wave of single women entering into old age? Or the middle-aged ones who have compromised their health early with unhealthy habits and obesity? Not their husbands. Not their children.

So many women I've know stubbornly refuse to look beyond tomorrow, but life is long and, often, hard. I read this on Facebook the other day:

Boys play house...Men build homes!!! Boys shack up...Men get married!!! Boys make babies...Men raise children!!! A boy won't raise his own children, a man will raise his and someone else's!!! Boys invent excuses for failure...Men produce strategies for success!!! Boys look for somebody to take care of them...Men look for someone to take care of!!! Boys seek popularity...Men demand respect and know how to give it..BOYS DO WHAT THEY WANT, MEN DO WHAT THEY CAN & MORE!

The woman who posted it has three children from two different men. She is stuck in a mediocre paying, dead-end job. She divorced her first husband because marriage wasn't fun, then shacked up with a series of less and less stable men until she threw the last mooching bum out a year or so ago. She is 40. Now she is seriously looking for Mr. Right and says she won't settle for anything less because she's worth it. The handwriting on her wall was written nearly a decade ago when she had her second and then third illegitimate child: life-long poverty. Her parents have helped her out over and over. She never pays taxes, but always gets a big return in April because of her head of household status. She wants a bailout, but fails to recognize that she's been perpetually bailed out for the decisions she deliberately made her whole life. She will not be in a position to help her own children, and they will need help. Oh yes, they will.

This woman is far more representative of most women than Bolick will ever be. Read the above paragraph again. Does it sound like she thinks she's better off on her own? No.

There are, of course, alternative ways for people to care for each other outside of the traditional family, as Bolick mentions when she talks about the Begijnhof, a former Dutch religious collective. However, these types of communities generally constrict an individual's freedom with rules they make for the peace and betterment of the community and require self-sacrifice as well as long-term service to others. You can't spend your life having adventures and spending all your time and money on yourself and then show up sick and needy on the doorstep of some commune at age 65 and expect them to take you in.

It's interesting the romantic way Bolick describes this women-made "nest." For her, when women make the rules, the idea of “If you want to live here, you have to adjust, and you have to be creative,” isn't stifling or repressed, it's liberating. Hmmmm.

Wall Street didn't do this to you

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Wed, 05 Oct 2011 02:47:00 +0000

For the record, I think Wall Street is corrupt and has its tentacles around every aspect of contemporary America, and I think if there was any justice in the world, the banksters and their dirty, debt-baiting, money-sucking empires would have imploded without dragging all of the world down into the hole with them. And the student loan scam is a national crime scene, one with the government's fingerprints all over it too.

However, my dear young women, Wall Street didn't do this to you:

or to you:

Your own poor choices did that to you. In America birth control is legal and often free and no woman is forced to have sex with irresponsible men, and yet women often do have sex with violent, unstable, or irresponsible men, bring their children into the world and then expect society to mop up after all of this terrible decision making. [Exhibit A: Rodrick Dantzler, a man from my neighborhood who killed 7 (seven) people, mostly women and children this summer after his wife kicked him out. It was revealed in the news today that he had fathered a child not only with this woman, but with three other women, not including the other girlfriend he killed or the female friend wounded in the police shootout.]

Look at the guy - sex on a stick, right? No sane woman would let a long history of violent behavior, incarceration, and mental illness keep her from having a piece o' that, right? Wait, no. How can that be right? But apparently ole Rodrick was beating them off with a baseball bat, yeah.

And, as to why, as queried above, anyone should have to choose between food and rent - it's because these things cost money to produce, build, or maintain, and no one owes them to you just because you exist and want them. I agree that it's horrific that your three-year-old son should have to live in dire poverty, but who created that situation? One hint: not Wall Street.

To the pregnant woman with the health compromised baby: consider adoption. I'm serious. It's not going to get any easier or better for you. At this point, adoption is the best option for your long-term future and your baby's.

The middle class stumbles...after shooting itself in the foot

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 03:23:00 +0000

As per usual, I've been reading a lot of financial and economic news, and right now there is a constant refrain of "the end of the middle class in America" in the news. The middle class has, indeed, taken a beating. Wages have stagnated, jobs have been outsourced. The Federal Reserve has been playing with the money supply, banks, let off their leashes, preyed on everyone they could catch, and the resulting boom/bust cycles made A LOT of money disappear. However, during the past 30 or so years when all of this was coming to a slow head, the middle class was doing a hatchet job on its economic future by participating or condoning the destruction of the traditional family and all the security it once afforded.

I'm not reading anything in the media about how divorce and illegitimacy are direct contributors to the spiking of the poverty rate - in particular, the child poverty rate.

Two of my old classmates are currently getting divorced. Amy* lost primary custody of her children in her divorce as her ex was a stay-at-home father [I have to say, this sounds off to me; how is this even possible? Her kids are school-age.]. She gets them a few hours one weekday night and every other weekend. She spaced on a critical job requirement and lost her teaching job; in this economy, it's almost outside the realm of the possible that she will find another. I don't know her financial details, but the divorce had to be costly, and she has a mortgage. She does have a new boyfriend. A year from now she will be either living with him or with her parents and declaring bankruptcy, if she hasn't already. The math supports no other conclusion.

Michelle's* husband came home one day and told her, "I don't love you anymore, and I think I want a divorce." He's never given her - or anyone else - a reason for why he wants this, he just does. Together, they were just barely holding their heads above water. They had a mortgage on a house that - like many, many houses in Michigan - is now underwater. Make that a mortgage and a second mortgage. They each had some credit card debt. She got downsized at work right before their second baby was born, and now only works a few hours a week. After the lawyers get paid, they will be so far below water that the surface light will not be visible. She has moved their two children into her parents' house, and he's looking for a roommate.

Michelle has two coworkers, sisters whom I also knew once upon a time. The first is divorced, the second is getting divorced. Her husband is bipolar and self-medicates with booze. She has a couple of kids and was living with her parents, but now has moved in with her sister. Her employment outlook is shaky; it looks like she's going to lose her job.

All of these women came from the exact same family background as I did: intact families with middle class incomes and college educations. All of them grew up in safe neighborhoods, went to good schools, attended church. And all of them are now toast financially. Not just for now, for at least a decade into the future, probably decades. Not because their jobs were outsourced or because they bet too much on derivatives or had a major medical event. Because of divorce. It is so depressing. And their kids won't even have the stability - financially, psychologically, or even possibly physically - that they had even.

When Amy posted on Facebook about how hard her divorce was, a laundry list of women I knew in high school posted things like, "It's hard now, but you'll work through the pain!" And, "You will make it; you're a strong woman." And, "God will walk you through this. Praying for you!!!" I had no idea so many people I'd graduated with were already divorced.

People think divorce is something you get through, but really it's very hard for women to recover from divorce. Remarriage is much less likely for them than their first marriage was, and they lose any/all of the equity they built in their twenties and thirties, starting over with a large debt hangover, expensive dependents, and a reduced ability to make money due to their family responsibilities. They can save less for retirement, one they will face alone, because it takes so much time to recover from the divorce.

And that's just divorce. Never married motherhood is a whole different scenario, bleak from the very outset financially for all but the richest moms. An old coworker of mine, Jenny*, has three children, by two different fathers (actually three of my old coworkers have children by two different fathers). The last guy mooched off her for the better part of a decade before she kicked him out. Her parents have bailed her out time and again. She's stuck making less than $30K, paying a mortgage on a old house that's underwater. Interestingly enough, her standards for Mr. Right have not lowered at all. She's even more exacting now about what she wants. Jenny's parents are, again, still together and financially secure enough, even now, to infuse her with cash every so often.

The upcoming waves of women who age into retirement age and extreme economic vulnerability are going to be catastrophic for America. So far we have papered over some of the damage with increased social spending, but that is not going to be possible in future. The first wave of unprepared Boomer divorcees is hitting now, and there are plenty of stories about women who "did everything right" - got college degrees (and more college degrees), got decent jobs, got downsized and now live in friends' attics all over the nation. What they have in common - no husbands - is never mentioned. Boomer women, at least, had good jobs once. Millenials may never have those kinds of jobs.

At a family reunion this summer I found myself talking to an aunt about her childhood. She grew up working class. Her father worked in a factory, did some kind of testing around huge chemical vats. He carpooled with four other men an hour each way to work. He barely made a wage able to support a wife and three children. Until my aunt was a sophomore in high school she lived in a basement. He built their house on his off hours with materials he could only afford to buy piecemeal. He dug the foundation first and they lived in that. When it rained, it got wet and they had to bail it out with buckets. They had a huge garden and canned everything they could. He hunted, and his wife canned the venison. Things were very, very close to the bone, but by the time she was in high school, the upstairs was finished and they moved into a proper house. He retired in his early sixties without a pension and promptly died of cancer, probably caused by his constant exposure to toxic chemicals. His widow worked part time at the dime store until her death some twenty years later, and left $50K to her children as an inheritance.

What struck me about this story was that it happened so close to when I was born, and yet it resembled my childhood not at all. My aunt is only about twenty-seven years older than I am, and grew up in the same community as my father. We Americans born after the temporary financial boom of the mid-twentieth century forget that this is the way people used to live, used to expect to live: a life full of hard, physical work and poverty pressing in on all sides. The difference is that my aunt's mother knew how to survive that and even save money, and we have all but lost the ability to be that thrifty or the willingness to learn.

We are going to have to learn it again, though, because we squandered the good times, and leaner days are ahead. If you are thinking of divorce, please read the above again. If your situation is not completely untenable, do yourself a favor and stay married.

*Name changed

What I did on my summer vacation

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 27 Aug 2011 03:07:00 +0000

Tended a vegetable garden (Note the difference between the growth of what is in the raised beds and what is not.)

Spackled and finally painted the bathroom (& replaced hideous light fixtures, etc.)

Put in an herb garden.

Enjoyed the beauty of Northern Michigan with my family.

Began gathering the harvest of summer...

...and putting it away for winter.

I also chauffeured my son to scout camp, swim lessons, birthday parties, play dates, played round after round of Harry Potter spell dueling, and taught him two-digit addition/subtraction and about Ancient Egypt. It was a good summer, and, frankly, I needed the break. Working hard outdoors is good for my mental and physical health. I've been reading and lurking, but not commenting much. I've saved some thoughts for future blog pieces here, although I'm not sure how much "wisdom" I have left to impart. I suppose we will see.

I feel honored that people keep checking back here and that I've been added to a number of blogrolls. Thanks once again for reading.

Rodrick Dantzler in my neighborhood

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 03:40:00 +0000

I've been away on vacation from the blog world. It's done me and my mental state a lot of good; I was experiencing a high level of anxiety from the doomsday scenarios I was reading (of my own volition sometimes rather obsessively). I feel better now. Calmer. Mostly I've been gardening - vegetable first, then flower, and taking care of my kid, husband, and household. The most exciting thing that happened last week was when my coonhound, Ruby, wandered out of the gate my son left open and went into a neighbor's yard.

The most exciting thing that happened this week was when Rodrick Dantzler murdered seven people in and around my neighborhood, leading the police on a high-speed chase, shooting two other people, taking three people hostage, and then - tardily - offing himself. Scary stuff. When I let the dogs out to pee last night, the choppers were still circling and police sirens overwhelmed the usual nighttime sounds of crickets and critters.

This is not the kind of thing that happens where I live, and obviously people are upset. They want answers, and since the perpetrator is now dead and before crazy, they are harder to come by. Dantzler was bi-polar. He had a long rap sheet full of violence. He'd served time. He had been with many women and had at least two children with two different women. He was abusive and had restraining orders against him.

He murdered four women, 2 girls, and 1 man, so I should have expected that outcry for more domestic violence legislation, but this article's ("Rodrick Dantzler's killing spree spurs call for stronger stance against domestic violence") made me do a double take. Go read it. One paragraph that stands out:

Domestic violence reflects a male-dominated society that does not hold men accountable for abusive actions, she said, noting that the majority of victims are women and the perpetrators men. About 5 to 10 percent of domestic violence victims are male, and most are involved in same-sex relationships, she added.

One of the commentators left this remark:

While it's wildly unpopular to criticize victims, we must also not shy away from teaching our children that who they CHOOSE to hang around with can have potentially deadly consequences. Rodrick Dantzler obviously had a rap sheet a mile long. All of the people involved with this individual, including a number of his victims CHOSE to associate with him.

My response is as follows. I'm posting it here because it isn't showing up on the site, and I took awhile to compose it.

"Exactly right. I see a lot of people commenting on how we can retrain men not to be abusive. The fact is that women are very frequently abusive, including physically abusive to the men they are involved with. A Florida study recently found that women are more likely than men to stalk, attack and psychologically abuse their partners. Federal statistics show that when child abuse occurs "Nearly two-fifths
of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone." Why is this? So many more houses are headed by women who are parenting alone now. That's a hard row to hoe, and throws more kids into poverty with all of its attendant poor outcomes and violence, but we as a society don't seem to want to limit women's choices in any way at any time, so - what the heck.

While it is worthwhile to try and educate people on men who abuse, we also need to see through the Victorian idea of women as helpless, harmless, innocent bystanders to abuse and also ask ourselves why so many young women prefer to be with men who are thuggish and abusive. Are women more sexually attracted to dominant men? Will they tolerate abuse and chaos if that means they have sexual access to thugs? Why do women take up with men who have raps sheets and lots of children scattered about among many women when there are plenty of more civilized men who would be better mate material? Why do women choose to have children with these men when reproductive choices make that optional even when pregnancy occurs?

The fact is, many women chose to be with Rodrick Dantzler, and he wasn't hiding who he was. Why did they choose him, and how can we train women to choose better? Women control sexual access and they choose which men get to reproduce. Rather than throw more money at retraining the whole male population - including the majority of men who aren't like this anyway - to not be abusive (a task made more complex by all the evidence provided daily by women that violent, dominant men actually make out pretty well and get plenty of sex), we should figure out why women are drawn to these men and how we can retrain them not to be or to choose non-violent men over violent ones."

This was a tragedy, but the bigger tragedy is that women are choosing to be with men like Dantzler every day and to make children with these men. And no one says anything, like it doesn't matter that women make terrible choices for themselves, for their children, and, ultimately, for the safety and security of our communities and society.

My hometown

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 28 May 2011 03:23:00 +0000

We are not dead yet. There are still people who are refusing to roll over and let everything fade. Vision, creativity, hard work: we still have those. Buy local, eat local, believe in your community, and invest whatever of your resources you have there. That's the future.

Busy

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Fri, 27 May 2011 14:02:00 +0000

I've been slow and sporadic about updating the blog. There are many reasons. First of all, I think it's better for my overall mental health to focus on positive action in my personal life rather than reading about negative events, micro and macro, so intensively. While I do think we are all (except the very rich) facing a significant decline in our standard of living due to the decrease in the number of jobs - in particular, well paying, sustainable jobs - monetary instability, an aging population, and gross amounts of debt, I really can't say if the Doomer stuff I've read here and there - stuff that really ratchets up my anxiety - is just gloom porn or not. So I'm hedging my bets doing things that aren't too radical, things that I've wanted to implement for some time but was too lazy or cheap to do, in order to make our lives at least slightly more independent of the food/energy system. I built six 4X4 raised beds with my neighbor and am planting a bigger garden. I cut down the pine trees in my yard that dropped needles which killed any and all undergrowth and planted a honey crisp apple tree. (I already have raspberries and grapes growing, and I think I might actually get a decent crop from both this year.) I've shopped rummage sales and stocked up on stuff like candles and electric heaters. I bought a cast iron woodstove for my enclosed porch as a back-up heat source. I haven't yet installed it, though, as my neighbor told me it was terribly expensive to do so and so I haven't had the nerve to call the woodstove people and get a quote. I'll do it, I'll do it. I got a composter used off Craigslist and am looking over rain barrels too.

All of this takes time. I've also been busy with my son's Cub Scouts den; last weekend at the Cub Scout camp out, he crossed over and became a Wolf Cub. I am the new Wolf den leader. He's had end-of-the-year school projects, readers' theater stuff, and I've had to liaise with his school because his teacher wants him assessed for ADHD. While he is hyper and easily gets off task (I don't think we sat through a whole mass even once until he was five) he's very bright and has no problem with his schoolwork and also has a number of friends at school, so the doctor tells me there is no real need for evaluation or even any sort of treatment. I'm not sure what I should do to make him sit in his chair more when he's got the material they're covering down already and the class is full of other boys who like to wiggle. My brain has been busy with this small problem.

Finally, my crappy HP Pavilion laptop has been dying a slow death of many cuts for awhile now, but I think it may finally have gotten injured enough to put down. My dog Milo kicked it off the bed last week when he jumped off to go bark at a phantom burglar, and now the power cord doesn't like to stay in.

So if I'm in and out here, bear with me. I am a real person behind the grerp facade. And now I have to go dig in some fencing so the bunnies can't eat the lettuce I have to plant. Have a lovely Memorial Day weekend and spare a thought for all those who died in service of our country.

A letter from a reader re: the Manosphere

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Tue, 24 May 2011 02:52:00 +0000

I received this letter the other day in my inbox:

Greetings Grerp,

I love what you do, please keep it up.

I believe you already addressed the issue of schadenfraude before on MRAs but lately it has become extremely disturbing.

First off, I actually came across these blogs last year when the misandrist media really placed the last straw on the camel's back. That last straw was the movie Eat Pray Love (I've heard of the book prior but dismissed it as garden variety chick lit unworthy of my attention), which celebrated a vain, selfish and immoral woman while indulging in crass stereotypes of Italy and India (my native country). From those blogs I learnt everything from alpha/beta, NAWALT, alimony, hypergamy and game to small government conservatism, the failure of two-party system, messianic wars, the craven nature of elected officials who ignore existential threats, etc. In other words, my ideas of society were transformed from the small scale (male/female relations) to the large scale (government, politics, war).

Like many men (who once suffered rejection and slights from women), I reveled in the company of like minded individuals who had similar stories. At first it was cathartic and rejuvenating. I believe it is occasionally healthy for men and women to bitch about the other genders in their own setting. And I still believe that.

My issue with the MRM is that it has there was so much individual anti-WOMAN feeling that it quickly devolved into an anti-WOMEN rage.

I was first alarmed when they gleefully covered the rape of Lara Logan by an Egyptian mob, some even suggesting that stupid women like her deserve it. Admittedly, it was foolish to send a woman to cover that particular story. But it does not follow that she is a bad person and does not deserve our empathy. Of course this doesn't mean I endorse bizarre stunts like "slut walks"... women would do best to act with common sense, be aware of the id that is the male libido and take the necessary precautions.

This latest scandal concerning the French assclown chief of the IMF is another example where the MRM jumped to the defense of this charmless mediocrity even though the accusations of sexual assaults against him are legion.

A good number of MRAs are libertarians and others not impressed with the two parties - nothing wrong with that in of itself. However these tend to be the characters who indulge in the most vicious anti-Semitism.

Chief among the MRA culprits are inmalafide (Ferdinand Bardamu) - a half educated, geopolitically illiterate, economically ignorant, hysterical, emotional fringe character who has opened up his forum to those even more deranged than him. Among the more stupid of his acolytes are Advocatus Diaboli (easily he runs one of the most idiotic blogs I have ever seen). And there is Whiskey who actually advocates women be relieved of their jobs in media, finance, HR and other female-centric professions so they are more receptive to beta males!!

There was a time when all of the above performed a vital function and provided useful information and advice for men who were trying to navigate the powerful misandrist forces in all aspects of society be it in politics, family, law, universities, sports, media or even the military! But lately like many things which outlasted its usefulness, MRA blogs have become counterproductive. Like many rebels who once railed against an unjust authority, they are slowly turning into tyrannical psychopaths.

Which is why I am turning away from MRA blogs for good, it was a fun 9 months while it lasted. While I thank them for all they have done before, I'm afraid what they offer men right now will do them more harm than good.

I request that if you choose to place this on your blog, that you keep it anonymous.

I decided to post this here - even though I'm sure to get flak for it - because I think he has some real points and these points I've heard echoed in the Manosphere by Dalrock, Athol Kay, Elusive Wapiti, Oz Conservative, OneSTDV, Ulysses, and others who seem to be pushing back against the notion that women are just oxygen ~~sucks~~ thieves, and the wisest course of action is just to build a bunker and set aside a metric ton of liquor.

I didn't comment on the Lara Logan case, but my opinion was that being in the middle of a male Egyptian mob during a Revolution was a stupid, stupid move - on her part and the part of her network. My advice to my readers would be to not do that. Be realistic about your safety and plan accordingly. Still, assault is bad stuff and should not be celebrated. I have no stomach for a "Bitch was askin' for it" mindset. If we can't be kind and compassionate to each other as we endeavor to improve our society in the small ways we can affect daily, there is no point to our existence.

I am also uncomfortable with the race hostility I've been reading of late in this area of the web. I am an adult, and I've lived as a minority in places I definitely didn't fit in. I have observed patterns of behaviors amongst people, and I do believe in things like national character and biological difference. I am also completely done with the White Guilt. Much of racial pontificating, however, seems like self-serving pride to me. Does it matter if one race or ethnic group is smarter or stronger than another or others if they use their abilities to pillage and destroy? To rape the planet and cheat whole populations of people out of their savings or land? Again, if we can't be kind to one another and as equally observant of our own flaws as we are of others', it's all kind of pointless. Page me when a bunch of Japanese researchers conclude that white people are the bestest race of all. On the other hand, don't. I've got a garden to plant, a bathroom to paint, and a summer curriculum to put together for my son.

In any case, please feel free to leave feedback for my reader. I would like to thank him for taking the time to write and for his kind comments about this blog. I've had a number of really kind emails lately. What an encouragement! Thank you all so much.

Piece of Advice #96: Get to know your neighbors

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Thu, 19 May 2011 02:45:00 +0000

In an era of cheap oil and general prosperity, we as Americans have lost touch with our neighbors. People were very mobile, and it made little sense to get to know people who might be gone next year or next week even. And most people could "afford" - either really or via cheap credit - to pay people to do things they once relied on their neighbors to help with: snowplowing, home and car repair, child care. In the north, where I live, cold weather also complicates things. We may stop and shoot the breeze with people on the block on a warm summer's night, but once the temperature goes down into the forties, we hustle into the house from the car as fast as possible. Every year we take a six-month break from getting to know each other.

But neighbors are important. They can provide a daily social outlet, and they are probably physically closer than your friends and family. Having someone you trust nearby in an emergency can make a big difference in how that emergency gets resolved. These days people get a glimpse of how neighbors used to routinely pull together only when the weather gets bad. When we get 16 inches of snow here, we see our neighbors. It may be cold, but you will stand out there and shoot the breeze anyway about What a storm that was and Wow, that's a lot of snow to move.

The people around you likely have a number of skills you do not. You can learn things from each other. They may have equipment you can borrow or stuff you need that they no longer do. Putting in my garden this past two weeks, I've spent a lot of time with my next-door neighbor with whom I've pooled money to make the raised beds, and I've gotten wood ash from the guy who lives diagonally behind my house. He has a woodstove. When the battery-operated handsaw I borrowed from my father-in-law kept cutting out, another neighbor volunteered his saw and his electric drill. That made putting together my potato bins quite a lot easier. Two more neighbors stopped by our garden and took a look at what we are doing. We talked for about twenty minutes, and now I know both of their names and a little more of their circumstances.

Personally, I feel that America is getting less and less benign by the day, and I do not think I'm alone in that. Big Government and Big Business have almost finished consolidating their control over food, oil, money, medicine, housing - all of the stuff we need to live. We may still be able to do things about that, but in the shorter term, we need to be able to take care of ourselves and learn to pool our resources so that we can stay safe, warm, fed, and housed. The people you know and trust will be a stronger safety net than anything the government will provide. Human beings are programmed to care about the people they know and not care about the people they don't know. Strengthen your safety net by getting out there and getting to know your neighbors. Invite them over, cook them dinner, give or lend what you can, even if it's only a sympathetic ear at first. You will probably have to make the first effort, though, as many of us are so out practice in neighborly hospitality. Keep trying, though, and don't keep a careful ledger of the things you've done that haven't been reciprocated. That neighbor who lent me his tools? I blew out the snow from his sidewalk all winter long and lent him my snowblower for the big blizzards. And I took his girlfriend's son to the doctor when they were both on vacation and he didn't have a ride. And I've given them plenty produce from my garden in the last several years.

It's understood that you must vet the people around you for trustworthiness and make ties with only your reliable neighbors. If you live in a place without reliable neighbors, move now. Seriously. We don't have any time to waste getting to know each other and building real community and connections, and there's no point in casting your pearls before swine. Our standard of living is already declining and it's only going to get worse. Good neighbors are buffer and a blessing in hard times.

Piece of Advice #95: Grow something

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Mon, 16 May 2011 02:50:00 +0000

I've been absento for the last few weeks concentrating on the project of putting together 6 raised beds, mixing some good soil, and planting stuff. I've been gardening with my neighbor in some unused collective space for about 3 years now, but the results have been less than exciting. We can grow green beans, zucchini, and some herbs, but our tomato yields have been poor and root veggies haven't been much better. So this year we are trying the method advised in Square Foot Gardening. Hopefully, the mix Mel Bartholomew advises using will produce better results than the rocky, nutrient poor soil + fertilizer base we've worked with so far. I haven't given up on that. I spaded old leaves and wood ash into the existing garden and will add manure mulch as plants emerge, but we're going to use that space to grow stuff that will grow pretty much anywhere.

In any case, why should you grow something? Because people need to know where there food comes from, how it grows, and what it tastes like when it is fresh and not steeped in a chemical cocktail. We as a society need to realize how terribly dependent we are on a food system that cares nothing for us as individuals and is content to undercharge consumers for "convenient" no-nutrient food while stealthily overcharging citizens via subsidies for Big Ag and Big Oil and uncounted environmental damage to the land we will need in the future long after it's been totally degraded. Our meat comes from animals who live short, terrible lives in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and whose poisoned, overmedicated flesh is sold to us as Grade A. Most everything else contains additives, preservatives, high fructose corn syrup, or soy.

Gardening is the first step to becoming less dependent on a system that cares nothing for health - human, animal, or environmental - and only for profit. It's also good for you. Growing things is practicing hope. It makes you move more in a variety of ways - digging, hauling, weeding, watering - and burns calories. People who garden connect with other gardeners for tips, and for encouragement. They share resources. They spend time together outside under the big free Vitamin D dispenser in the sky. They make critical community ties. The first time I sat down and had a meal with my neighbor - whom I've been living alongside for about 7 years now - was last weekend. I threw a chicken and some vegetables into a roasting pan at 4 PM and went out to dig out some sod with her. An hour and a half later I realized her husband was out for the night and she would be eating alone. I invited her over and we all ate dinner together. It was really nice, and I would not have done it had we not been working on our mutual project together.

Even if you only have time or space to plant in pots, try to grow some herbs because cooking with herbs is far, far superior to cooking without them. Plant some seeds, watch them come up, and realize what a miracle it is that life generates from such simple things - seeds, water, soil, sun.

Piece of Advice #94: Put your clothes back on. PLEASE.

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sat, 07 May 2011 03:59:00 +0000

I was under the impression that the nearest Slutwalk to me was going to be in Detroit. Then someone linked to a truly local Slutwalk on Facebook. For those of you not in the know, Slutwalk started in Toronto as a protest against a police officer there who told women they could lessen their chances of getting assaulted if they didn't "dress like sluts." So a bunch of women got together and decided to dress like sluts because they could and have a parade while they were at it. In Toronto. In early spring. Good call.

When I checked out the local Slutwalk page, I saw this video featured as inspirational:

There are times when I feel I have truly fallen through the rabbit hole. Now is such a time. Women apparently feel that the new frontier of empowerment hinges on their ability to dress like brothel workers and demand others respect them for their bad taste and attention whoring. For this women are marching: to look like the best lay a gold-mining saloon could offer; as in, not obviously diseased.

Uh huh.

Look, let's be honest with ourselves as women. Can we all agree that we don't go out in a pink halter tops and satin hot pants because of the comfort factor? We don't dress that way to impress our girlfriends with our sense of style either. Women dress in miniscule, tight, sexy clothing to get the attention of men. And it is effective. Unfortunately, women can't always control how that attention channels itself. And instead of acknowledging that limitation - that this is a built-in trade-off for guaranteed male attention - they throw a group tantrum, wag a bunch of fingers, and attempt to control the reaction they provoke through chanting, and shaming, and what have you.

Wouldn't it just be easier to wear figure flattering clothing that manages to cover up the essentials? Women looked gorgeous in Edwardian clothing. The success of Mad Men has to hinge in no small part on wardrobe envy - women and men staring at how fantastic people used to look in tailored, buttoned up clothes. Most of the time, with clothes, more is more. Dress decently, and you spare yourself the possibility of trouble. You also spare the rest of us all of the parts of you we'd rather not see, but you force us to view.

And in other news: women passionately defend one teacher's right to write porn on her off time. While this is clearly within this teacher's legal right to self expression, we have come a long way down a twisty side road to Perdition if the right to write (and read) porn is what women will sputter and emote over.

Grerp reviews: Why Are Jews Liberals by Norman Podhoretz

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 04:19:00 +0000

In a recent discussion resulting from my post, Piece of Advice #92: Be your kid's parent, regular commenter sestamibi said:

What's truly sad is that Jennifer claims to be a member of Our Tribe. While Jews have always considering liberalism a part of our faith, we carried on our lives in the most conservative manner. That part has long gone, and we wonder why we're disappearing.

I responded:

Maybe you can shed some light for me on Jews and the Democratic party because I find it confusing that a group of very intelligent, religious, hardworking, highly educated immigrants went from being Orthodox Jews to atheist Democrats in about 2 generations. The vast majority of Jews in the Pale of Settlement didn't have very much money, but they were a highly cohesive group, very much outside of the dynamics of slavic society, and they did a great job of both keeping crime down and supporting the needy within their own group - without any outside funds.

So they come to America, stop following the religious beliefs they'd held fast to for thousands of years, intermarry with gentiles at astounding rates, and passionately proselytize for a party that wants to take the money they make and give it to non-Jewish groups who have no investment in Jewish survival and may even actively dislike them. I'm pretty sure that a hundred years ago approximately no Jews were begging the Russian government to take both their autonomy and half their money. Given their history of being summarily kicked out of nearly every country in Europe (without their possessions), you would think blind faith in this government would be counterintuitive and against all their best interests.

Maybe I'm not seeing it right. I realize the trend across all groups in America is for liberalism and that Jews are certainly not the only ones assimilating and intermarrying. But when I contrast them with the local Dutch Reformed - grandchildren of conservative, religious people who to some extent have maintained a religious/ethnic identity, Jews are far more liberal as a whole. Why is this?

And sestamibi recommended that I read the book Why Are Jews Liberals by Norman Podhoretz. So I did. Podhoretz's argument, carefully laid out chapter by chapter in more or less chronological order starting with medieval Europe and ending in the now, is that:

Jews have had their strongest and most dangerous opposition from the right, first from the Church which would only accept them if they converted to Christianity, then from Enlightenment-inspired governments who would accept them only if they gave up their Jewish ways and assimilated, and finally from modern racist thought which posits that Jewishness is in the blood and can never be eliminated and that Jews are the scourge of the earth; no acceptance is possible.
Out of a sense of preservation Jews gravitated left and eventually, as they assimilated and abandoned religious observance, many of them adopted Marxism because its social justice concerns and utopian ideals dovetailed with Jewish thought in some (fairly diluted) ways.
Time passed. Marxism failed, and a more general liberal ideology took its place. Beliefs in racial and sexual equality and a strong social safety net paid for by taxes morphed into a pseudo religiosity that is impervious to economic or other logic. In the post-Holocaust era, the American Right no longer tolerated antisemitism, but the Left began to toy with it. The Right has offered far more support for Israel as the Left became apathetic or hostile. None of this mattered, Podhoretz posits, because American Jews aren't in particular physical or social danger, and the goals of Liberalism now outrank the fate of Israel and Judaism in general.

I have to admit my primary reason for asking this question is the hostility that I've sensed from some of the Jews I have known once they learn my religious and political beliefs - which is ironic given that the evangelical tradition in which I was raised is rather...fond of Jews and Israel. I grew up in a homogenous community that was almost entirely white and Christian, and did not experience antisemitism in any memorable way. I learned the stories of the Old Testament as a child and thought of Israel and Jerusalem as a sacred place. Jews were considered cousins of sorts on the family tree of Christianity. We were to try to convert them when possible, yes, but since evangelical Christianity tries to convert everyone, this was no particular judgment.

As an adult, reading the thoughts of Jews online and interacting with them, it is clear that the benign or positive feelings I was taught are not in any way reciprocated. This is a purely unrequited love affair. I have had experiences when I sensed strong suspicion or my ideas and work on purely unrelated subjects were passed over by Jewish supervisors because of my Christian conservative identity - which I find laughable because there are way more conservative people out there than me. Also, America is hardly a hotbed of Jew hate. Russia, on the other hand - I would be nervous to be a Jew there. I taught 6th graders English in Russia when I was in my twenties, and one day I was going over a list of professions, writing them up on the board: teacher, doctor, nurse, farmer, priest, minister, rabbi... When I got to "rabbi," the entire class laughed. I scolded them for making fun of the word or the profession, and after class one of my little girls, Alyona, came up and thanked me for not laughing at Jews. She was Jewish. Her family emigrated five or so years later; she called me on the phone to let me know she was in America now and to thank me for being her teacher. The fact is, it didn't occur to me when I scolded my class that I was standing up for Jews in plural. I just thought it was disrespectful to laugh at a rabbi, linguistically or otherwise.

One thing I found a little wanting in Podhoretz's book is the way he glossed over the Jews role in the historical cultural conflict with the goyim. He presents them as passive, as targeted for misplaced hatred or cruelty kind of by accident. As if every single one of them was a bystander on a corner somewhere and then - over and over through European history - BAM! a car comes around the corner and jumps the curb. How could this happen when they were just standing there?

I understand that Podhoretz is a Jew and that antisemitism was pervasive, frightening, and frequently violent. But I am inclined to believe that Jews are people like other people and will act and react like other people do when oppressed and discriminated against. Which is to say, some of them had to have fought back. Podhoretz makes it clear that the Jews distrusted and disliked Christianity; it was their natural enemy. This had to have bled over into their feelings about their Christian neighbors. Minority discrimination isn't unusual, but their history of exile and reacceptance, then exile again is unique. When you compare the Jews to the Roma, the gypsy people, the dynamic between them and the settled Christians of France, Germany, Rome, England, Poland, isn't identical. I would hypothesize that you see the outbursts of repulsion, violence, and verbal and written abuse because of three factors:

Jews were outsiders historically; their faith prohibited them from socializing in certain ways that make neighbors feel close and relate to each other better. Their inability to eat Christian food, in particular, kept them apart. Diversity + Proximity = War (or maybe just "war").
Jews are very smart. Judaism puts a high emphasis on learning and study, and genetically they seem to have some intellectual advantage. Jews do not tend to shy away from the realization and acknowledgement that they are smart either.
(And this one is very, very important) Jews were allowed to play with money - other people's money. Christians were not permitted to lend and charge interest. The Church considered that to be usury and immoral. Countries and economies need capital to grow, however, so Jews were encouraged, funneled, or pressured into the money trades, and they tended to thrive in those fields, or at least some of them did. History doesn't write down the names of those who can't handle double-entry bookkeeping. You let smart, hardworking people play with the money of people they consider their natural enemies, and you have problems. You make money, they make money, everything's copacetic. But then you make a little more money, and they get a little careless with debt. Then they get a taste for stuff they can't afford, like wars and crowns and expensive mistresses, whatever, and you keep loaning, but this time your terms are a little less generous because maybe Tsar Alexander let his soldiers play in the shtetl and killed a couple of thousand of your kinsmen. Sooner or later that debt comes due, but kings don't pay debts - that's for serfs. And by this time in the money deal, only one party is making the money.

Repeat this last step over and over for a couple of thousand years and see what happens. The kicker is, of course, that few Jews had enough capital to shoot one below the bowsprit in the culture wars. But the people who did had their names on the sides of buildings. People knew them, people blamed them, and then people extended the blame to encompass plenty of others who hadn't ever done anything.

Money is the root of all kinds of evil. Observe what is happening now. America is foundering economically, and instead of addressing the underlying problems, our first solution is to Tax the Rich. If things get a little worse, taxing might not be all of what the public wants to do to the rich. We will see if things do get violent. Podhoretz himself states in his history that America really had no antisemitism in its public discourse until after the Civil War when the Jews were accused of profiteering.

The difference between then and now is that banks are more corporatized and the public doesn't perceive them as being Jewish - thus, "Tax the Rich!" and not "Kill the Jews!"

Overall, I found Podhoretz's Why Are Jews Liberal to be an interesting and thought-provoking read and recommend it as such to you.

Grerp reviews - Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America by Stephen Bloom

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 00:37:00 +0000

(Note: this review was written originally in 2006 and published on a now defunct personal blog.)

Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America by Stephen G. Bloom is a thought-provoking read even though it is, only and essentially, Bloom's subjective opinion about a community of Hasidic Jews.

Bloom, an assimilated and non-observant Jew, moved with his wife and small son to Iowa City, Iowa in the early 1990's. Faced with a complete lack of Jewish community, found himself interested in the dynamic of Postville, a white, primarily Lutheran community which had recently been economically revitalized when a group of Lubavitcher Jews set up house there to start a kosher meat killing/packaging business. To Bloom this was an opportunity to commune with other Jews and to practice his real-life journalism skills - the locals hadn't taken kindly to the Hasidim and there was considerable tension there. Was this antisemitism rearing its ugly head yet again? Or was the problem more complex?

Bloom takes us on his journey, first talking to the Iowans and then infiltrating the Hasidim who are much less open but ultimately willing to talk to him as it gives them the opportunity to proselytise and try to bring him back into the Jewish fold. He quickly comes to the conclusion that this is a clash of cultures. Both the Iowans and the Lubavitchers are entrenched and insulated communities and neither of them understand the other. But the Iowans are at least willing to try and get to know their new neighbors. They invite the Hasidim to ecumenical Thanksgiving services, and their clergymen try to dialogue and preach tolerance to the various flocks. The problem is that the Hasidim don't want to get to know the Iowans. They want to completely ignore them as getting to know them even slightly might open the door to assimilation - the thing they most fear. Bloom also discovers that the Hasidim are openly hostile to and contemptuous of these Iowan goyim. Part of what keeps the community together is the Hasidim's absolute faith in their mission - to keep their practice of Judaism pure and to pass it on to future generations of Jews. Backing that mission is the assumption that this way of life and this people are better than their neighbors. And flowing out of that assumption is an unpleasant sort of elitism and, in some cases, actual racism. Some of the Postville Hasidim actually go out of their way to annoy their neighbors. They delay paying their bills to the locals so they can do it on "their time." They bargain for the absolute lowest price when they know this is not the Iowan custom. They renege on some of their agreements - if they don't feel like fulfilling them. They are generally obnoxious neighbors. Further, Agriprocessors, the kosher meat plant, runs their business using undocumented, mostly foreign workers, underpaying them while at the same time subjecting them to difficult working conditions.

Bloom, attracted to these Jews because of the common heritage they share finds himself repulsed by their religious practices as well. To him, many of their religious restrictions are stifling and pointless, and he dislikes the roles women are offered to play in this community - mainly those of wife and mother. These Hasidim dismiss Bloom's lifestyle and upbringing as pointless and goyish and criticize his job, his wife, and his religious ideas. In an unlikely twist, Bloom finds himself much more at home with the Iowans and much more sympathetic to their feelings towards these other Jews.

As I read Postville, two sorts of questions were raised in my mind: how much of "antisemitism" is actually antisemitism and how much of stereotype is based on truth? Bloom answers neither question, but dances around both issues. As a reader, it's necessary to understand that the impressions Bloom has and the conclusions Bloom draws are simply those: his impressions, his conclusions. It would be interesting to read the impressions and conclusions of 1) a gentile journalist and 2) a Hasidic journalist. While Bloom describes the situation and the Hasidim very well, it's impossible to ignore the fact that he is a bit intimidated by and wary of Orthodox Judaism in a way that a gentile would not be. He is a potential target for evangelization. He is a Jew and his lifestyle is exactly what these Lubavitcher Jews oppose. That puts him in a defensive position to start out with and predisposes him to a negative impression.

Still, it's interesting to note that Bloom feels that the Postville Iowans are not, in fact, antisemitic, even though the Lubavitchers think they are and are quick to label any action or remark that is critical of their community as antisemitism. From Bloom's point of view the problem is mostly of the Lubavitcher's making - they treat the Iowans disrespectfully and dismiss their concerns as unimportant. The reader can imagine that they would treat any community anywhere in the same manner. And that left to continue in this pattern the Iowa locals' dislike of the Hasidim will only foment and grow over time until something really negative happens and violence occurs. Which makes you wonder if some of the incidents of worldwide antisemitism past and present have been mischaracterized

Because when one talks about racism or antisemitism, one talks of victim and perpetrator, of minority and majority, and the assumption is that the majority are at fault and the minority are innocent. But what if the majority aren't at fault, as Bloom describes here? What if the minority really do act badly and then claim that they are merely victims of the nasty majority? Not that I think that antisemitism or racism in general can be explained that way. Clearly, most of the time the minority do have less power than the majority, and power is a dangerous thing. But that can't be true in every case. Every bushel of apples contains some bad ones. And insulated communities have the natural result of raising suspicion and defensiveness amongst those they are segregating themselves from. Those two factors operating within a mixed community whose members do not understand each other will lead to a highly charged situation, no matter the location. And the resulting bad feeling won't be completely the fault of the local majority.

The second question Bloom raises involves stereotypes. Everyone assumes that stereotypes are ugly and untrue. But what if they aren't always untrue? What if sometimes the minority really do have ugly, unpleasant, antisocial behaviors? A couple of months back, I was watching the documentary Shtetl, in which several elderly Jews return to Bransk, a small town in Poland, to confront their past and see how the contemporary Poles rationalize their past antisemitism and the Jewish Holocaust. At one point one man, Jack (formerly Jankel), is talking to a neighbor who is even older than he is. This former neighbor had dealings with Jack's father who died in the war. And in the course of the conversation the neighbor accuses, gently, Jack's father of cheating him and being money-grubbing. As a viewer, I immediately labeled him as antisemitic. This is the oldest stereotype in the world. You could tell it really hurt Jack and made him angry to have his father so accused. But in reading Postville and reading about how these Hasidim went about their business dealings with their gentile neighbors, you could see the same sorts of accusations could and were being made there. And that they were, at times, true. What's more, some of the Lubavitchers themselves described their attitudes toward making money using similarly stereotypical expressions. Every community has its less nice neighbors. The fact is, Jack's father can't be posthumously exonerated, and dismissing the old man's recollection as antisemitic is choosing to believe one side over the other just because of what happened on a grander scale: the tragedy of the Holocaust. Jack's father could have been a corrupt businessman. He could have cared more about money than he cared about his neighbors. We don't know, and at this late date with so few witnesses surviving, the truth would be hard to get to. It's just easier to think of the Polish man as antisemitic because so many Poles were. But he might not be. He could be telling the truth. The problem is, you can't say things like this Polish man said anymore in regards to someone of a different racial or ethnic or religious group without being called a racist. You can't honestly dialogue in that way. But that is exactly what Bloom does in his book Postville. He can do it because he's also a Jew and, one assumes, can tell the difference between antisemitism and personal disgruntlement. Which is what makes Postville: A Clash of Cultures in Heartland America such an interesting read, even if, ultimately, it raises more questions than it answers.

Best of TLAOS-P(fW)

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 03:43:00 +0000

The following is the advice that I would give over and over, every day if I could. A lot of this is buried in the archives, so thought I would highlight it again.

On relationships:

On developing your best self and being attractive to the opposite sex:

On money:

On unplugging:

According to my Google analytics stats, the only one of the above to be a top viewed page is "Do not embrace your inner slut." The other top pages are:

Piece of Advice #93: Don't get into cars with strange men

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 03:37:00 +0000

I know this one seems pretty obvious, but apparently not:

Over at The Hairpin, the advice columnist, A Lady, answers a question:

I'm a guy living in a big Spring Break hot spot. During this time, one question always come up between my friends and I, why do women get into cars with strange guys? In my experience this isn't rare and it isn't limited to drunk college girls. So, whats up with that? It seems like a bad idea.

Spring Breeeaaak!!!!
What's up with the fact that you and your friends probably also see women binge drinking, smoking cigarettes, blowing coke, eating Red #5, TANNING WITHOUT SUNSCREEN, and all sorts of other dumb things and aren't at all phased? But when they pile limitlessly into cars with dudes they just met, you're all, "Somebody save the womennn!" Or that you don't think it's a bad idea for the guys in this story to let strange women into their cars? Hmmm? You and your friends are very nice, and it's very nice that you're concerned, but also any place that can be described as "a big Spring Break hot spot" sounds like Bad Idea Town, Population : D so it's interesting that you think the riding in cars with boys thing is a worse idea than all of the other things that probably go on, is all.
Since you're basically asking why women sometimes do risky things, I guess the answer is because women are human. Girls just wanna have fun. Sometimes it's fun to get in a car with a strange guy, 'cause cars are awesome, guys are cool, and strangers are exciting. And sometimes it's a bad idea to get in a car with a strange guy, 'cause cars are dangerous, guys are jerks, and strangers are terrible. No real way of knowing, other than to trust your instincts. You're way more likely to hear about the times a woman did something that turned out to be a bad idea, because Law & Order: It Worked Out doesn't air 25 times a day, and the 10 o'clock news is never like, "Coming up after the break, another wanton slut gets her shit banged out vacation-style by a guy she met in the parking lot, describes the entire ordeal as 'fucking incredible.'" Doesn't mean those things don't happen too. Not all men are predators on the hunt, and not all women are victims-in-waiting. Sometimes people are just people, tryna get they party on, you know? You know. Spring Breeeaaak!!!!

Sometimes I think women actually don't mind other women getting assaulted and killed so long as women in general can behave incredibly stupidly without any guilt. It would seem to be the only logical explanation for the kind of answer given above.

I'm going to give you the same advice your first grade teacher gave you: Getting in cars with strangers is a bad idea, even if they offer you candy (or orgasms). Don't do it. You could end up in little pieces. Or sold into prostitution by white slavers. You could get raped or contract HPV. Or maybe not, but why take the risk?

If you absolutely need to have your "shit banged out vacation-style" by a stranger, use a reputable service. Then the police can look up an address on a W-2 when they find your severed finger in his trunk. It will save them a considerable amount of time and, therefore, tax dollars.

Here's the thing about those tax dollars: the public pays for the work of 911 telephone operators, police officers and detectives, court personnel and judges; they don't come cheap, and most of these people have seen their hours cut in recent years. I would prefer they use what resources they have remaining to track down and prosecute crimes that are, say, not totally preventable. If you tan without sunscreen, the police do not have to get involved. I'd still recommend the sunscreen, but if you want to get wild and take chances there, go ahead. Don't take rides with strangers.

Girl bullying in fiction: The Help by Kathryn Stockett

noreply@blogger.com (grerp) — Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:43:00 +0000

In my last post, on trusting women, I referenced several classic books that talk about girl on girl bullying. In the comments, Omnipitron touched on power jockeying and how both men and women do it.
This reminded me of my reaction to the book The Help by Kathryn Stockett. It's hot right now - it's been made into a movie schedule for release this year - no doubt because it's about overcoming racism in the pre-Civil Rights South. But I had a really hard time getting through it* because I got sick of all the power jockeying amongst the female characters.

The book is about the black women who did the housecleaning and child care for middle class and wealthy women in Jackson, Mississippi, and it reveals all of the nasty undercurrents of that system, but also how the black and white communities were intimately connected because white children were largely raised by black women and often made very strong emotional connections with them. One of the three main characters is the tall, plain, white Skeeter Phelan. She was raised by her housekeeper Constantine whom she loved devotedly. Her mother is a controlling witch. When the book opens, Skeeter is returning from four years at college, but when she arrives Constantine is gone, replaced by another maid, and her mother is tight-lipped about what happened. In reacquainting herself with her home town and pre-college life, Skeeter notices many things she finds disturbing about the way her white peers treat "the help." She decides to do an expose in an attempt to jump start her writing career. This puts Aibileen and Minny - two of the women she gets her information from - in serious jeopardy.

There were several things that irritated me about the book: 1) almost all the men in it were either intrinsically no good or victims of violently racist actions, 2) the only "heroic" white female character was the one fighting the system and even she was doing so for her own benefit and risking others' lives in the process, and 3) nearly ALL of the women, black or white, were engaged in serious girl/girl status jockeying. In a real way the day-to-day domestic racism everyone was objecting to was just another hurdle keeping some women from keeping other women down.

While the book portrayed some really ugly stuff - such as one boy getting beaten so hard he goes blind (for the audacity of using a "Whites only" toilet), most of the other stuff was petty - like how one female character forces her poorer friend to install a bathroom for her maid outside so she won't be using the facilities in the house. I get that this is racism, and it's ugly to imply that a black maid is dirty and diseased, but on two different levels this is basically female status jockeying. You have one mean girl forcing her less mean friend to do something she can't afford to force another girl to do something humiliating.

The book was full of this kind of thing which the reader is supposed to nod her head at and say, "Wow, that was terrible; I'm sure glad we addressed that awful racism. We are so evolved now." But if you could, in fact, take racism totally out of the equation, you would still have the same girl-on-girl nastiness, just changed to fit the new reality. I couldn't finish it. The women were just so tiresome. In my view, The Help is a vehicle for women, especially Boomer women who lived through the Civil Rights movement, to feel self-righteous about the progress made to defeat racism without in any way confronting what is actually being portrayed here - how women, if given the chance, will happily oppress and humiliate each other if it means gathering more power for themselves. I did not believe for a moment that if the black and white women in The Help were to reverse roles, anything would be different, even though the black characters were much kinder, both among themselves and to the white children in their keeping. The greater lesson - that power corrupts and that strict boundaries on behavior apparently produce nicer people - is completely lost.

*Note: I listened to it on audio instead of reading it; the three narrators are excellent, by the way.