Every now and then, in looking at the different models of community living out there, the idealist in me longingly looks at socialism and thinks, gee, wouldn't that be nice? Everyone helping each other out, working together in co-operation for the common good, and all those wonderful utopian ideals.
Then reality comes along and smacks the stupid out of me.
I need that every now and then.
Tonight was one of those head smacking nights.
As I've mentioned before, we now live in a housing co-op. This is a model that's somewhere in between the capitalist model of home ownership, leasing or renting, and the more communal co-housing model. In a co-op, every unit owns exactly the same number of shares, whether it's a 1 bedroom unit with a single dweller, or a 5 bedroom unit with 7 people living in it. One unit also represents one vote, so not only do we all own exactly the same percentage of the complex, but have the same level of power as anyone else.
One of the requirements is that everyone is expected to put in their share to the smooth running of things, to the best of our abilities. Obviously, someone in a wheelchair isn't going to be able to do garbage room duty as well as an able bodied person, but there's nothing preventing them from participating in or heading the various committees.
Ah, the committees. What joy!
Yeah, that's meant to be sarcasm.
Some of the committees are necessary. Maintenance. Finance. Membership. Others are more for fun. Social. Gardening. Newsletter. Most of these get together at least once a month. Then there are the board meetings every couple of weeks, quarterly membership meetings that we're all supposed to try to get to, and the annual membership meeting, where we get to vote in our various board members.
Now, in a perfect world, each of these committees would get together for their meetings, look at what needs to be done, make decisions on what they have enough information on, or find out what is needed and spend the time until the next meeting gathering that info so that decisions can be made. Everyone gives constructive input, co-operatively debate what needs debating, call a vote if needed, and once the decisions are made, the job gets done.
The problem, of course, is people.
Which illustrates for me why the socialist model, as wonderful as it might sound, simply cannot work on a large scale, such as in running a country. Because even on a scale as small as our own, it barely works.
In order for a democratic socialist model to work, everyone involved has to be motivated for the greater good. What always seems to happen is that there people, usually the same one or two, that just can't seem to do it. Even the simplest of things get stymied, blocked, argued over and lambasted.
I was just at a general meeting. Not an annual one, so not as many people were there. Still, these are the meetings where decisions involving the entire co-op are made, so long as the minimum number of people show up for any voting that needs to be done. The meeting moved along swimmingly until we got to the one piece of new business we had, which happened to involve a chunk of money. There is some needed renovation of a public, communal area in our complex, and it was suggested that some of the money gets invested there.
Cue the bickering.
Note, we weren't even trying to decide on what needed to be done, just that we agreed this area needed work beyond regular maintenance, and that we'd look into the details for future decision making.
On one side, there are the people who don't want any "spare" money going towards anything at all. They'd rather the money was rerouted to [insert preferred budgetary area here]. Then there are the ones who refuse to accept a specific process. Others refuse to accept details; in the case of a renovation, that might be the type of flooring, or paint colours. None of which was even part of this meeting.
Even after the president specifically stated that he didn't want things to get bogged down like another suggestion that had been made a while back - so bogged down, in fact, that even after everyone agreed it needed to be done, it hasn't been done and may well not be done at all anymore - someone went and suggested that...
Can you guess?
That's right... another committee get formed. A temporary one, formed just to deal with this one renovation.
Which would pretty much guarantee that this needed renovation of a communal space wouldn't happen for probably a year, if at all.
While a community situation like ours pretty much requires the use of committees, it is probably the most inefficient way to get things done that exists. Things that could be taken care of in a matter of days are instead taking months just for the decision making process. Not that everyone is happy when things do get accomplished, but that's just human nature. Were this a commercial property, owned by an individual or corporation, things can still get bogged down, but in the end, the owner(s) say, "this is what will be done," hire the appropriate people to do it, and it's done. The more people involved in the decision making process, the longer it takes, which is why decision by committee is so bloody frustrating. When the committee has to answer to an even larger number of equally invested interests, the result often feels like running into a brick wall at every turn. After hitting that wall head first time and again, it gets pretty hard to see straight. The same points get rehashed over and over, because there are always some people who are completely unwilling to accept that their opinion on the subject isn't the one everyone else agrees on. If they don't get their way one way, they try another, and if that doesn't work, they'll insist on various actions that drag things on and on and on.
It gets worse.
With some people, they're among those bitter, toxic people that hate everyone and everything. They just love poisoning the well, and nothing is ever right for them. With others, it might be the manifestation of psychological problems. How do you respond to someone who keeps repeating issues that have already been resolved because they literally can't remember what happened 5 minutes ago? Still others do it as a way to grasp power and gain relevance in their lives. Perhaps they're frustrated at work or in their home lives, so they latch onto the one thing in their world where they can actually exercise some control, so they do it, even if it causes distress to others. Well, to be honest, the more distress it causes to others, the better this particular group seems to like it.
In a nutshell, no matter how much socialist style co-operation would benefit a community, human nature will never allow it. The only way it could work smoothly is if all the members of a community reject or hold back their own self-interests in the interests of the group, and no one has any ambition beyond what the group desires. There certainly isn't any room for individualism, unless the individual's desires happen to be the same as the group's. Independent thinking, whether it's of the negative sort I've mentioned above, or more positive sorts that suggest improvements and changes, is not encouraged. Rocking the boat, even it it's to try to knock people into a bigger and better boat, is not tolerated.
In the end, what develops is apathy and complacency. Why bother showing up at all these meetings, when every good idea will just get shot down by the toxic avengers? Why take part in committee meetings, when the same people bring up the same issues, over and over and over and over and...
... yeah, we've been getting that one a lot.
There's little incentive to improve, and even less to innovate.
Now, as much as I find all this frustrating, we chose to live here. We came in here with our eyes open, knowing what our responsibilities and expectations were. So we put up with it, and we try to work with it as much as we can. If others don't pull their weight, we're not going to slack off, because what we do that benefits our community benefits us. This was a decision we made, and we will make it work to the best of our abilities.
On a grander scale, however, such as governing a country, that choice is gone. On a large scale, even if things are supposedly democratic, freedoms are not just lost, but taken, to benefit a larger community we did not necessarily elect to be part of. Such a system, instead of breeding co-operation, breeds resentment; apathy instead of activity; complacency instead of ambition. It becomes bloated and inefficient.
History has shown, time and again, that socialism as a system, no matter how well meaning and well intentioned the original co-ordinators were, devolve to become the most wasteful, the most environmentally harmful, and the least free of all societies. For all the problems capitalist based societies have, they still manage to be better, for the individual, the community and the environment.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A touchy subject
For the last while, Eldest has been checking out a lot of old and esoteric movies from the library. (you can check out her new movie blog here) Tonight, we re-watched Metropolis, and it reminded me of a conversation we'd had about how different the old movies are from today. In the old silent movies, the acting is physically over the top. Motions are exaggerated, facial expressions extreme. Without speech to convey the message, people did a lot of heart clutching, eyebrow waving and dramatic swooning.
In one old Garbo movie, the two male leads played characters who where the best of friends. They often held each other in their arms, faces inches apart, while talking. They even kissed each other in greeting. While watching Metropolis, we saw various male characters hold and hug each other in various ways, even though the characters weren't close friends. There was a great deal of physical contact. In modern movies, physical contact between men is either the macho, manly sort, where they punch each other's shoulders, or roughly clasp each other, or they're gay characters who's physical contact is meant to imply romance or sexual intimacy. It's similar with female characters, though modern movies do allow women to have more physical contact with each other in a non-sexual manner then men.
Old novels describe characters behaving in similar ways, and these reflected the culture of the time. I remember women of my parents' generation, for example, would frequently walk hand in hand or arm in arm if they were good friends. At social gatherings, I often saw little old ladies dancing waltzes and polkas with each other more often then with men.
Everyone, male and female, greeted each other with kisses. On the cheeks, on the lips, it didn't matter. It wasn't unusual for people staying overnight in each other's homes, at a time when spare bedrooms were rare (if people had houses big enough for there to be bedrooms at all), for women to sleep with other women, and men with men, and no one thought anything of it. It really wasn't that long ago when entire families would sleep together, sometimes in a big dog pile, and any guests would join them. Co-sleeping among family groups was the norm, even for those wealthy enough to have space and beds. I remember reading that the largest bed recorded belonged to a British (?) king, and it slept 120 people. These days, in Canada and the US, everyone is expected to have their own bedroom, and even infants are expected to sleep alone in a separate room - a truly modern turn of events, and far from the norm around the world.
Other cultures are far more comfortable with physical contact. I recall my FIL telling me about some of the customs they had to get used to while living in Bamako, Mali. There, men walked down the street hand in hand, without anyone assuming they were gay. My FIL demonstrated to me the typical behaviour when meeting someone at the beginning of the day.My FIL reached out to hold my hand with one hand, while stroking the back of it with the other.While looking me full in the face, he started asking me things like, how are you feeling today? How is your wife? Your daughter? This would be coming from the people he was working with! Job talk would not start until after this greeting ritual. Saying hello could take 5 or 10 minutes. It took a long time for him to get used to this level of physical touching.
How different our current culture has become! Somehow, we seem to have come to a point where all physical intimacy is viewed as sexual. If we see two people holding hands, we assume they are in a romantic, if not sexual, relationship; especially if they are of the same gender. More so men than women, for whom girlfriend hugs are still okay. Physical touch has become so sexualized, that many women won't do breast self exams, never mind use tampons that don't come with applicators. Even parents are suspect when touching their own children. Particularly fathers and daughters. I recall reading one psychological text that described a father bouncing his toddler daughter on his lap, interpreting not only the father's actions, but the daughter's responses, in a purely sexual manner. It was downright creepy!
How did we come to this point, that we have so physically isolated ourselves from each other? How did we come to interpret even the most innocent of physical contact as sexual? (I could probably blame Freud, now that I think about it.)
More than that, we seem to have even begun to see all non-familial relationships as potentially sexual. In looking at older generations or reading books from earlier time periods, we see that people developed close, intimate relationships with each other, without them becoming sexual, and no assumption that they ever would. Men and women alike expressed their love for each other, in words, in letters, in gestures, without it ever becoming sexual. Many people, looking at these real or fictional relationships through the lens of our modern culture, insist that this meant they were actually gay - the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Watson being one example.
It seems to me that our sexualization of intimate relationships may even be effecting our ideas of our own sexuality. I think it's perfectly natural to want to touch and hold someone you care deeply for, regardless of gender or sexual preference. Since we live in a culture that seems to interpret any sort of physical or emotional desires for intimacy as sexual, I suspect that some people who've found themselves caring very deeply about someone of the same gender are concluding that they must be homosexual. Why else would they want to be so intimate with them? It seems we can't even admire the beauty of someone of our own gender without the suggestion that we must be gay because of it. I can look at another woman, admire and enjoy her physical beauty, without it meaning I'm a lesbian and want to have sex with her, yet our culture increasingly sends the message that I couldn't possibly enjoy looking at another woman without being gay. Heaven help a man who appreciates the beauty of another man! (Note: when it comes to homosexuality, I know that for some people, there's no doubt that they are born that way. They're not who I'm talking about.)
The idea that we can form a close bond with another person, share our heart and soul with them, hold them or even *gasp* kiss them! without also wanting to have sex with them just doesn't compute. Our highly sexualized culture tells us that men and woman can't have intimate (or sometimes, even casual) relationships with each other and not want to have sex with each other. In fact, it seems as if our culture sees people as being completely enslaved by our sexual desires, and that we must indulge them. Not only that, but if we find we *don't* have these desires, something must be wrong with us. The idea that we can have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex without wanting to hop into bed with them means one of two things. Either we're gay, or there's something wrong with us and we should go to a doctor for a pill to fix our lack of desire. The idea that we might actually enjoy an intimate, non-sexual, relationship with others seems an aberration. Yet, like co-sleeping and higher levels of physical contact, this interpretation is very new, and not at all the norm for humanity.
In one old Garbo movie, the two male leads played characters who where the best of friends. They often held each other in their arms, faces inches apart, while talking. They even kissed each other in greeting. While watching Metropolis, we saw various male characters hold and hug each other in various ways, even though the characters weren't close friends. There was a great deal of physical contact. In modern movies, physical contact between men is either the macho, manly sort, where they punch each other's shoulders, or roughly clasp each other, or they're gay characters who's physical contact is meant to imply romance or sexual intimacy. It's similar with female characters, though modern movies do allow women to have more physical contact with each other in a non-sexual manner then men.
Old novels describe characters behaving in similar ways, and these reflected the culture of the time. I remember women of my parents' generation, for example, would frequently walk hand in hand or arm in arm if they were good friends. At social gatherings, I often saw little old ladies dancing waltzes and polkas with each other more often then with men.
Everyone, male and female, greeted each other with kisses. On the cheeks, on the lips, it didn't matter. It wasn't unusual for people staying overnight in each other's homes, at a time when spare bedrooms were rare (if people had houses big enough for there to be bedrooms at all), for women to sleep with other women, and men with men, and no one thought anything of it. It really wasn't that long ago when entire families would sleep together, sometimes in a big dog pile, and any guests would join them. Co-sleeping among family groups was the norm, even for those wealthy enough to have space and beds. I remember reading that the largest bed recorded belonged to a British (?) king, and it slept 120 people. These days, in Canada and the US, everyone is expected to have their own bedroom, and even infants are expected to sleep alone in a separate room - a truly modern turn of events, and far from the norm around the world.
Other cultures are far more comfortable with physical contact. I recall my FIL telling me about some of the customs they had to get used to while living in Bamako, Mali. There, men walked down the street hand in hand, without anyone assuming they were gay. My FIL demonstrated to me the typical behaviour when meeting someone at the beginning of the day.My FIL reached out to hold my hand with one hand, while stroking the back of it with the other.While looking me full in the face, he started asking me things like, how are you feeling today? How is your wife? Your daughter? This would be coming from the people he was working with! Job talk would not start until after this greeting ritual. Saying hello could take 5 or 10 minutes. It took a long time for him to get used to this level of physical touching.
How different our current culture has become! Somehow, we seem to have come to a point where all physical intimacy is viewed as sexual. If we see two people holding hands, we assume they are in a romantic, if not sexual, relationship; especially if they are of the same gender. More so men than women, for whom girlfriend hugs are still okay. Physical touch has become so sexualized, that many women won't do breast self exams, never mind use tampons that don't come with applicators. Even parents are suspect when touching their own children. Particularly fathers and daughters. I recall reading one psychological text that described a father bouncing his toddler daughter on his lap, interpreting not only the father's actions, but the daughter's responses, in a purely sexual manner. It was downright creepy!
How did we come to this point, that we have so physically isolated ourselves from each other? How did we come to interpret even the most innocent of physical contact as sexual? (I could probably blame Freud, now that I think about it.)
More than that, we seem to have even begun to see all non-familial relationships as potentially sexual. In looking at older generations or reading books from earlier time periods, we see that people developed close, intimate relationships with each other, without them becoming sexual, and no assumption that they ever would. Men and women alike expressed their love for each other, in words, in letters, in gestures, without it ever becoming sexual. Many people, looking at these real or fictional relationships through the lens of our modern culture, insist that this meant they were actually gay - the relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Watson being one example.
It seems to me that our sexualization of intimate relationships may even be effecting our ideas of our own sexuality. I think it's perfectly natural to want to touch and hold someone you care deeply for, regardless of gender or sexual preference. Since we live in a culture that seems to interpret any sort of physical or emotional desires for intimacy as sexual, I suspect that some people who've found themselves caring very deeply about someone of the same gender are concluding that they must be homosexual. Why else would they want to be so intimate with them? It seems we can't even admire the beauty of someone of our own gender without the suggestion that we must be gay because of it. I can look at another woman, admire and enjoy her physical beauty, without it meaning I'm a lesbian and want to have sex with her, yet our culture increasingly sends the message that I couldn't possibly enjoy looking at another woman without being gay. Heaven help a man who appreciates the beauty of another man! (Note: when it comes to homosexuality, I know that for some people, there's no doubt that they are born that way. They're not who I'm talking about.)
The idea that we can form a close bond with another person, share our heart and soul with them, hold them or even *gasp* kiss them! without also wanting to have sex with them just doesn't compute. Our highly sexualized culture tells us that men and woman can't have intimate (or sometimes, even casual) relationships with each other and not want to have sex with each other. In fact, it seems as if our culture sees people as being completely enslaved by our sexual desires, and that we must indulge them. Not only that, but if we find we *don't* have these desires, something must be wrong with us. The idea that we can have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex without wanting to hop into bed with them means one of two things. Either we're gay, or there's something wrong with us and we should go to a doctor for a pill to fix our lack of desire. The idea that we might actually enjoy an intimate, non-sexual, relationship with others seems an aberration. Yet, like co-sleeping and higher levels of physical contact, this interpretation is very new, and not at all the norm for humanity.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Shaping our perceptions: updated
It's always interesting to me, when reading news and magazine articles, how headlines are used to shape our perceptions - and how often those headlines misrepresent the articles they're written for. Here's an example I found today.
Going by this headline alone, you could understandably assume that this woman somehow fought for, and got, a better parking spot simply because she was fat.
But what does the article say?
The first hint that things are not as they seem is right in the first sentence.
Now, she's not just obese, but morbidly obese... with various health problems added almost as an afterthought.
What else is there?
One, she's in a wheelchair.
Two, her neighbour refused to switch parking spots with her.
Now imagine if there had been this, more accurate, headline. How would this change your perception?
She is in a frickin' wheelchair!
Full stop.
Nothing else is of issue.
Ah, but a neighbour refusing to switch spots with a wheelchair bound woman would be discriminatory. Refusing to switch spots with a woman that wants it because she's obese... well, who wouldn't refuse such a trite request?
There's another perception that's implied by the phrasing of this headline. Because this woman is first described as obese, it is implied that her weight is the reason she's in a wheelchair, diabetic, and breathing from an oxygen tank. It also suggests that someone who is so OMGFATZ!!! can't possibly also be mobile (though she still manages to operate a vehicle, or she wouldn't need the parking spot in the first place). Never mind that people just as heavy, and heavier, are not rended immobile by their weight and manage just fine, thankyouverymuch.
On the other hand, if she had first been described as being in a wheelchair, one might instead assume that her weight and other health problems are complications of whatever put her in the wheelchair in the first place. Either way, why she's in the chair doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she is in a frickin' wheelchair! Seriously. The rest doesn't even need to be mentioned.
(As an aside, when we first moved to our current home, one of our new neighbours was in a wheelchair, needed oxygen, was diabetic and, yes, obese. She had considerable mobility problems. She was also active on many committees, and a great neighbour. None of her health problems, and certainly not her weight, kept her from being an active contributor to our community. I wish some of our able bodied neighbours would match even half of what this woman managed! Note I am speaking of her in the past tense. Sadly, about a month after we met her, she somehow fell out of her chair while alone at home, knocking the oxygen tubes loose. Unable to reach her help alarm, she died. The outpouring of grief from our new neighbours was a testament to how greatly loved and appreciated she was by our community.)
The Quebec Human Rights Association seems to get it, though.
UPDATE:
Lorne Gunter has weighed in on this story, from a different point of view.
Human rights' next fronteir: Your parking lot.
First off, I agree with Gunter, to a point. For there to be a human rights tribunal over a parking spot is ridiculous. It should never have gone that far. He also gives out a few more details in the story (apparently, Myrand is in a "handicap scooter," not a wheelchair. Which means that she's got some mobility, but still can't walk. She would still need an accessible spot.
The person who had the spot, on the other hand, claimed she needed it because she's 60, has a bum shoulder, and works late.
Hmmm... bad shoulder... can't walk...Which do YOU think is more of an issue?
His other point is that it's not the condo association's place to take parking spots from one person and give them to another.
I would need some clarification on this. As I understand it, people own their condos (or rent from independant owners), but parking lots are co-owned and assigned, similar to our own co-op parking situation. Individuals don't own their parking spots, and if necessary, the condo association can indeed change them around, if there were reason to. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
Unfotunately, Gunter still makes it about Myrand's weight.
Obese woman wins right for better parking spot.
Going by this headline alone, you could understandably assume that this woman somehow fought for, and got, a better parking spot simply because she was fat.
But what does the article say?
The first hint that things are not as they seem is right in the first sentence.
MONTREAL (CP) — A morbidly obese Quebec woman with various health problems has won her legal fight for a better parking spot.
Now, she's not just obese, but morbidly obese... with various health problems added almost as an afterthought.
What else is there?
Now we have two things.The 57-year-old resident of Sainte-Marie, Que., weighs 389 lbs., suffers from diabetes, needs a wheelchair, and gets help breathing from an oxygen tank.
She had tried to switch parking spaces with another condo dweller, but the neighbour refused and the condo association left the two to sort it out themselves.
One, she's in a wheelchair.
Two, her neighbour refused to switch parking spots with her.
Now imagine if there had been this, more accurate, headline. How would this change your perception?
Wheelchair bound woman wins right for better parking spot.Think about it for a moment. This woman's weight is irrelevant. Her diabetes and the fact that she needs an oxygen tank to breath is also irrelevant. When it comes to a parking spot, there's only one relevant fact.
She is in a frickin' wheelchair!
Full stop.
Nothing else is of issue.
Ah, but a neighbour refusing to switch spots with a wheelchair bound woman would be discriminatory. Refusing to switch spots with a woman that wants it because she's obese... well, who wouldn't refuse such a trite request?
There's another perception that's implied by the phrasing of this headline. Because this woman is first described as obese, it is implied that her weight is the reason she's in a wheelchair, diabetic, and breathing from an oxygen tank. It also suggests that someone who is so OMGFATZ!!! can't possibly also be mobile (though she still manages to operate a vehicle, or she wouldn't need the parking spot in the first place). Never mind that people just as heavy, and heavier, are not rended immobile by their weight and manage just fine, thankyouverymuch.
On the other hand, if she had first been described as being in a wheelchair, one might instead assume that her weight and other health problems are complications of whatever put her in the wheelchair in the first place. Either way, why she's in the chair doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that she is in a frickin' wheelchair! Seriously. The rest doesn't even need to be mentioned.
(As an aside, when we first moved to our current home, one of our new neighbours was in a wheelchair, needed oxygen, was diabetic and, yes, obese. She had considerable mobility problems. She was also active on many committees, and a great neighbour. None of her health problems, and certainly not her weight, kept her from being an active contributor to our community. I wish some of our able bodied neighbours would match even half of what this woman managed! Note I am speaking of her in the past tense. Sadly, about a month after we met her, she somehow fell out of her chair while alone at home, knocking the oxygen tubes loose. Unable to reach her help alarm, she died. The outpouring of grief from our new neighbours was a testament to how greatly loved and appreciated she was by our community.)
The Quebec Human Rights Association seems to get it, though.
Congratulations on your win, Marise!
The rights tribunal ruled that the condo association discriminated against the handicapped Myrand, and it ordered the association to pay $10,000 in damages.
UPDATE:
Lorne Gunter has weighed in on this story, from a different point of view.
Human rights' next fronteir: Your parking lot.
First off, I agree with Gunter, to a point. For there to be a human rights tribunal over a parking spot is ridiculous. It should never have gone that far. He also gives out a few more details in the story (apparently, Myrand is in a "handicap scooter," not a wheelchair. Which means that she's got some mobility, but still can't walk. She would still need an accessible spot.
The person who had the spot, on the other hand, claimed she needed it because she's 60, has a bum shoulder, and works late.
Hmmm... bad shoulder... can't walk...Which do YOU think is more of an issue?
His other point is that it's not the condo association's place to take parking spots from one person and give them to another.
I would need some clarification on this. As I understand it, people own their condos (or rent from independant owners), but parking lots are co-owned and assigned, similar to our own co-op parking situation. Individuals don't own their parking spots, and if necessary, the condo association can indeed change them around, if there were reason to. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.
Unfotunately, Gunter still makes it about Myrand's weight.
Clearly, it's bad manners to wonder aloud whether someone who has allowed herself to become morbidly obese is now trying to use that condition to inch her vehicle closer to the entrance and save herself a few steps at the expense of a neighbour.
Excuse me?!? Allowed herself to become morbidly obese?!? WTF! Believe it or not, people don't "allow themselves" to become morbidly obese in the first place, and it again assumes that her weight is the cause of her health problems, rather than a symptom. There's so many things wrong with that statement, I don't know where to start. In the end, though, IT DOESN'T MATTER! This isn't about trying to "save herself a few steps at the expense of a neighbour." It's about NOT BEING ABLE TO WALK. Why is irrelevant. Would he say the neighbour who has the spot doesn't deserve it because she "allowed herself" to injure her shoulder?
Clearly, this is a case that involves a lot of bad blood between residents.
The Quebec tribunal claims Ms. Myrand was discriminated against because her neighbours used "insulting and degrading language" toward her and "violated the inclusive values promoted by our society." The condo association is also alleged at one point to have suggested Ms. Myrand might be using her obesity for personal benefit.
Gunter goes on to say that this is not about discrimination, but about selfishness - Myrand's selfishness, that is, for daring to be so damn fat she can't walk (never mind her other health issues), not her neighbour's for using her age and shoulder injury as a reason to keep it. Yeah. Right. No blind prejudice there, right?
We've got a parking spot that's very convenient, as far as our lot goes. It also happens to be a wheelchair accessible spot, as it's wider than the others, but not visibly marked as such. We got it because it was the last spot left. If our co-op came to us and asked us to move to a different spot because someone who was mobility challanged wanted it, we would move. This even though, between my husband and myself, we could argue that we have our own mobility challanges. Why? Aside from it just being the nice and neighbourly thing to do, it would be because WE DON'T OWN THE SPOT. The co-op does. We are co-owners of the entire facility, not any one part of it, so other members have as much right to that spot as we do. Unlike a co-op, a condo association wouldn't have to take it to a vote, with months of committee meetings.
Gunter is right in that this should never have been a human rights case at all. The government shouldn't have to step in on such a trivial issue. What he doesn't seem to wonder is how things degenerated to the point that it would have gone that far. That the condo association went from saying it wasn't their job to "take stalls from one owner and giving them to another" to apparently suggesting Myrand "might be using her obesity for personal benefit" smacks of discrimination, even if Gunter can't see it. This should have been resolved privately. Clearly, things escalated well beyond that and an outside organization had to step in.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Giving it a go...
Gosh, I can't believe it's been such a long time since I've written. It's not like there hasn't been an overabundance of potential subject matter, such as how the AGW fiasco has been crumbling before our eyes, or the latest report telling us we're all gonna DIEDIEDIE, based on double-blind, clinical trials a self reporting survery.
Real Life, however, has a way of stepping in. Rather distracting that way. ;-) The biggest issue has been my husband's health taking another turn for the worse. *sigh* Poor guy can't win for losing. His latest combination of drugs has been doing its job and his blood sugars are back in normal ranges. The side effects have calmed down. Unfortunately, it looks like stress has triggered another flare up of whatever's wrong with his digestive system. The dr. even signed him off for a couple of days of medical leave (and he ended up taking another day more) in hopes that the rest would help. Can't say that it did. We discovered when he tried telecommuting that my husband doesn't have the temperment to be home a lot. Of course, with having only one chair that gives his back proper lumbar support, that being the computer chair, means Dh has been at the computer playing WoW for hours at a time (well... in between bathroom sessions). Meanwhile, the dr's written him up for another barium test to try and see what kind of damage there is. Dh has had this test before, or a similar version, before we changed provinces. He's not really looking forward to it. At least this time, he's not expected to go on a liquid diet for a week before the test, with the last couple of days spent drinking that horrible prune juice on steroids he was given. He's just got a 2 day liquid fast to deal with, instead. :-P
We've managed to get out and about, though. Dh even went with me to a big potluck dinner organized by a member of one of our home school groups. It was followed by games and dancing, but he wasn't up to staying that long. I hated to cut and run right after eating like that (and boy, was it good!), but we were already pushing his tolerance levels. There were a few friends I never got the chance to talk to beyond a quick hello. It would have been good to chat. Ah, well. We do what we can.
I also headed out with Youngest for a regular get together with another group of friends. We got our baby fix in and everything. :-D I'm still getting to know a lot of the people in this group. They're a nice bunch of ladies, but I'm a bit taken aback by how much diet talk there is. It seems like they're all dieting, or about to diet, or should be dieting... I never know quite how to respond. Talking to one of them, who's had a baby just 6 months or so ago, she threw out a comment along the lines of "you know how, when you're overweight, you HAVE to diet." I was rather stunned speechless by that. Especially when she went on to talk about how hard it was with the rest of the family not needing to diet, then recounted how her daughter, who's about 7, I think, was all upset about eating a piece of cake instead of something "healthy," and all the calories eating an apple would be. The best I can do, I guess, is just not contribute to the conversation. I'd be quite the wet blanket if I started going on about how I consider weight loss dieting to be a form or disordered eating that encourages body dismorphia. I take some solace in the comment Youngest made in the van later on. She swore to me that she'd NEVER go on a diet. She is, however, interested in improving her fitness. She accompanied me on my mall walk (Eldest usually joins me) that night, and we talked about hiking and doing weights and stuff.
One thing I've noticed when talking with other parents with kids of all ages. We've got a couple of great kids! Neither of them are suicidal, experimenting with drugs, viciously rebellious, or running away from home. They don't hate themselves or their bodies, each other or Dh and I. I'm rather surprised by how much of this I've been seeing. Apparently we've been doing something right. What that is, I have no idea. Could be something we're NOT doing that's right, for all I know. I can throw out a few possibilities, but for every one of them, I can look at a family that does the same thing, but has issues we don't have, or do things completely differently, and their kids are just as fine as my own.
Whatever it is, I'm thankful for it!
Real Life, however, has a way of stepping in. Rather distracting that way. ;-) The biggest issue has been my husband's health taking another turn for the worse. *sigh* Poor guy can't win for losing. His latest combination of drugs has been doing its job and his blood sugars are back in normal ranges. The side effects have calmed down. Unfortunately, it looks like stress has triggered another flare up of whatever's wrong with his digestive system. The dr. even signed him off for a couple of days of medical leave (and he ended up taking another day more) in hopes that the rest would help. Can't say that it did. We discovered when he tried telecommuting that my husband doesn't have the temperment to be home a lot. Of course, with having only one chair that gives his back proper lumbar support, that being the computer chair, means Dh has been at the computer playing WoW for hours at a time (well... in between bathroom sessions). Meanwhile, the dr's written him up for another barium test to try and see what kind of damage there is. Dh has had this test before, or a similar version, before we changed provinces. He's not really looking forward to it. At least this time, he's not expected to go on a liquid diet for a week before the test, with the last couple of days spent drinking that horrible prune juice on steroids he was given. He's just got a 2 day liquid fast to deal with, instead. :-P
We've managed to get out and about, though. Dh even went with me to a big potluck dinner organized by a member of one of our home school groups. It was followed by games and dancing, but he wasn't up to staying that long. I hated to cut and run right after eating like that (and boy, was it good!), but we were already pushing his tolerance levels. There were a few friends I never got the chance to talk to beyond a quick hello. It would have been good to chat. Ah, well. We do what we can.
I also headed out with Youngest for a regular get together with another group of friends. We got our baby fix in and everything. :-D I'm still getting to know a lot of the people in this group. They're a nice bunch of ladies, but I'm a bit taken aback by how much diet talk there is. It seems like they're all dieting, or about to diet, or should be dieting... I never know quite how to respond. Talking to one of them, who's had a baby just 6 months or so ago, she threw out a comment along the lines of "you know how, when you're overweight, you HAVE to diet." I was rather stunned speechless by that. Especially when she went on to talk about how hard it was with the rest of the family not needing to diet, then recounted how her daughter, who's about 7, I think, was all upset about eating a piece of cake instead of something "healthy," and all the calories eating an apple would be. The best I can do, I guess, is just not contribute to the conversation. I'd be quite the wet blanket if I started going on about how I consider weight loss dieting to be a form or disordered eating that encourages body dismorphia. I take some solace in the comment Youngest made in the van later on. She swore to me that she'd NEVER go on a diet. She is, however, interested in improving her fitness. She accompanied me on my mall walk (Eldest usually joins me) that night, and we talked about hiking and doing weights and stuff.
One thing I've noticed when talking with other parents with kids of all ages. We've got a couple of great kids! Neither of them are suicidal, experimenting with drugs, viciously rebellious, or running away from home. They don't hate themselves or their bodies, each other or Dh and I. I'm rather surprised by how much of this I've been seeing. Apparently we've been doing something right. What that is, I have no idea. Could be something we're NOT doing that's right, for all I know. I can throw out a few possibilities, but for every one of them, I can look at a family that does the same thing, but has issues we don't have, or do things completely differently, and their kids are just as fine as my own.
Whatever it is, I'm thankful for it!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Oh, Dear...
I picked up this morning's National Post (yes, we have a real, honest to goodness subscription now. Hey, it was for charity. ;-D) and a below the fold, front page headline caught my eye.
With this being right under the headline and photo about Haiti (which I won't even try to write about right now), I figured, did someone pull a Danny Glover? Or was it another article talking about how yet another group of people are about to be wiped out by [fill in the blank] because of climate change? Then I saw the subtitle
Well, almost.
It turned out to be an article about one Mardi Tindal, and her mental anguish about the failure of Copenhagen.
And just who is Marki Tindal, that we should know or care about her mental state? Why, she's the newly elected moderator for the United Church of Canada, freshly back from COP15. Why she was there, I haven't figured out, but she was. From the article...
Seriously? That was his response? Aside from turning out to be an enabler, do people really talk like that? I mean, I can understand writing like that, but talking?
Whoa, whoa, whoa... hold on there. Millions of live that have been lost? When did this happen? Copenhagen failed, millions of people dropped dead, and it never made the news?
Right. At this point, I'm thinking there is something seriously wrong with this woman's mental state.
Go and read the rest of the article. Come back when you're done, and we'll chat some more...
Ya back? Cool.
So the article goes on to quote Psychological Magazine and a UK psychiatrist, talking about how all sorts of things, from psychological disorders to the spread of infectious disease, are going to get worse because of climate change. Then it tells how Ms. Tyndal travelled to Ottowa to personally deliver her letter of lament to the GG, PM and party leaders. Other MPs will get theirs in the mail.
So here we have a woman who is clearly emotionally and mentally disturbed (and I don't mean that as any sort of diagnosis; just a description of her behaviour and comments as described in the article) who also thinks her mental state is important enough to share with Canada's political leaders. All of them.
Then she's quoted...
Wow. Who'd have thought that, after all these billions of years, life on earth was so very fragile?
Mental duress and hubris, all wrapped up in one package. Interesting combination.
Brought to the brink by climate change.
With this being right under the headline and photo about Haiti (which I won't even try to write about right now), I figured, did someone pull a Danny Glover? Or was it another article talking about how yet another group of people are about to be wiped out by [fill in the blank] because of climate change? Then I saw the subtitle
Mental duressOh, I thought. Another article about the psychological disorders being blamed on climate change, then?
Well, almost.
It turned out to be an article about one Mardi Tindal, and her mental anguish about the failure of Copenhagen.
And just who is Marki Tindal, that we should know or care about her mental state? Why, she's the newly elected moderator for the United Church of Canada, freshly back from COP15. Why she was there, I haven't figured out, but she was. From the article...
Mardi Tindal, the newly elected moderator of the United Church of Canada, returned from last month's climate change summit in Copenhagen with a deep malaise. Not a true clinical depression, but an anxious despair that reduced her to weeping.
Okay, so I can see being really emotional coming back after a big event like that. But seriously... at this point, I'd be concerned that she's taking on too much.
She was so disappointed by the meeting's failure to reach a binding deal that she broke down in the car one day as her husband drove toward their home church in Brantford, Ont.
If I were her husband, yeah, I'd be worried. Time to back off and regroup, Honey. Something like that...
"I simply wept. My tears were quiet, but I spoke through them, and I was being listened to. My husband said, 'There is great power in what you have just said, and it is a powerful message that makes clear why you are weeping.' "
Seriously? That was his response? Aside from turning out to be an enabler, do people really talk like that? I mean, I can understand writing like that, but talking?
"And I said, 'Doug, I'm weeping for the millions of lives that have been lost as a result of what did and did not happen in Copenhagen," Ms. Tindal said.
Right. At this point, I'm thinking there is something seriously wrong with this woman's mental state.
Go and read the rest of the article. Come back when you're done, and we'll chat some more...
Ya back? Cool.
So the article goes on to quote Psychological Magazine and a UK psychiatrist, talking about how all sorts of things, from psychological disorders to the spread of infectious disease, are going to get worse because of climate change. Then it tells how Ms. Tyndal travelled to Ottowa to personally deliver her letter of lament to the GG, PM and party leaders. Other MPs will get theirs in the mail.
So here we have a woman who is clearly emotionally and mentally disturbed (and I don't mean that as any sort of diagnosis; just a description of her behaviour and comments as described in the article) who also thinks her mental state is important enough to share with Canada's political leaders. All of them.
Then she's quoted...
"... the fate of civilization and of millions of the planet's life forms hanging by the frayed thread of inaction,"
Wow. Who'd have thought that, after all these billions of years, life on earth was so very fragile?
Then she compares herself to abolitionist William Wilberforce, and suffragate Nellie McClung. Oh, and yes! There it is! Martin Luther King, Jr.! You just knew he had to be brought in, too, didn't you?
Mental duress and hubris, all wrapped up in one package. Interesting combination.
"What if, instead of racial segregation, King had spoken about high greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere?"
WTF? Seriously? Is she seriously equating gasses that make up 5% of the earth's atmosphere with racial segregation? Is she suggesting that GHG levels can in any way match the importance of equal rights and the end of racism?
I know there are people out there who anthropomorphize animals, believing that they think and feel just like humans, and should have the same rights we have applied to them (if not more so), but this is the first time I've seen someone do the same with atmospheric gasses.
Okay, all joking aside...
Here we have a woman who is clearly passionate about her beliefs about anthropogenic climate change. Passionate to the point that it's effecting her mental and emotional state. This is something that's on the rise, and particularly evident among children who have become so frightened by the alarmism they're taught in school, many are unable to sleep due to worries, have nightmares, suffer from depression and anxiety, etc. In Ms. Tyndal's case, she's also a religious leader who is using her position to spread her beliefs.
What I'm wondering, though, is what's going to happen when reality hits? How does someone with such a mental and emotional commitment to a cause respond to increasing evidence that the position they hold is false? That they've been lied to and misled? As more and more evidence of manipulation and collusion emerges; as increasing data is gathered and revealed, showing that AGW alarmism is the biggest manufactured scare in human history, how will people like Ms. Tyndal respond?
What will their "mental duress" be then?
Monday, January 11, 2010
What do you do when the shoe doesn't fit?
(this is a cross post from my home schooling blog, as I felt it fit here as much as it does there)
This blog post was brought to my attention this morning, and I really enjoyed it. Here's an excerpt.
I have seen and experienced this myself a number of times, and I just admit, it has left me very jaded about my fellow unschoolers. In fact, I've found myself frequently questioning the tolerance of the self-professed tolerant, and along with anti-Christian sentiment, I would also include political, geographical and other ideological intolerance as well.
While the writer talks about how few unschoolers there are compared to more regulated styles of home based education, I would say that has a lot more to do with where one lives, and what support groups are available. In all our moves, I've found the majority of my fellow home schoolers are more on the unschooling side of things than the stereotypical school-at-home style. If fact, I don't recall ever meeting any hs'ing family in the school-at-home extreme, but I've met quite a few that could be considered "radical" unschoolers. (Personally, I don't think either extreme is a good idea.) Most of the families I've encountered over the years tend to fall more towards the unschooling side of things - they have routines and maybe even purchased curriculum, or make their kids do sit-down bookwork at certain times, but are still very relaxed about things.
There's a general assumption made about the different styles of home schoolers. School at home types are viewed as Conservative, Right Wing, and Christian (and, by extension, racist bigots) - the more regulated the schooling style, the more to the right their political views, and the more extreme their religion is assumed to be. There is also a tendancy to view this category of home schoolers as anti-science, as well - young earth creationists and the like. There is probably some truth to the stereotype (after all, there's a reason stereotypes come about), but I just haven't encountered it personally. I've only read about them.
Unschooling types, on the other hand, are assumed to be left leaning, more socialist, and have little or no religion at all (agnostic or athiest), to be Unitarian if they're Christian, or Pagan, Buddhist (or at least their version of Buddhism), Secular Humanists, etc. In my experience, the left leaning tendancy of unschoolers leads to a higher number of AGW believers, and greater levels of environmental extremism.
Over the years, I've seen a very strong divide between the home schooling ideologies, and unfortunately, the most bigoted, least tolerant views I've encountered have been from my fellow unschoolers. I used to be part of a large, active Canadian home school email list. I finally left it when a troll was allowed to spew his vile unchecked, while those who tried to counter his bile were clamped down on by the moderator. This, on top of the anti-Christian sentiment and other bigotry I saw allowed on the list was the final straw, and I left a community I'd been part of for almost a decade. Sadly, I am seeing similiar intolerance within our local community as well - especially when it comes to topics such as AGW and environmentalism.
We are an unschooling family. Not out of ideology, but because that's what worked with our older daughter, and we just kept it up with our younger. Quite simply, our attempts to school-at-home, even slightly, were failures and set the girls, especially Eldest, back considerably. My definition of unschooling, however, is very broad, and I think a lot of unschoolers would disagree with me. I do not, for example, have any problem with sit down bookwork, or using a curriculum, text books, etc. To me, these are just tools and methods to be used or discarded, based on need. Some families simply do better with a more regimented schedule, and some kids need a more orderly learning style. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the methods are used because they best suit the child, not because of external beliefs on how education "should" happen, it's still unschooling. I know teens who have chosen to go back to high school. As far as I'm concerned, they're still unschooling, because it was their choice to use the school system as an educational resource. If a family is unschooling because the parents decided that this was the "right" way to educate children, but ignore that their individual child actually thrives better on something more regulated, I cannot think of that as actually unschooling. It's still a method that's forced onto the child, regardless of that child's needs or desires. The key, to me, is that the methods used are suited to the individual child, even if the parents don't necessarily think it's a good idea.
We are a Christian family. I am an ex-Catholic, but not anti-Catholic. Over the decades, as I've looked at different religions, belief systems, and the different types of Christianity, I find I still have greater respect for Catholicism than any of the others. I would, in fact, still consider myself catholic, as the word means "universal church," and therefore really encompasses most, if not all, the Christian faiths. I respect people who follow different faiths, even if I don't agree with them. What I've found, however, is that there is a very strong anti-Christian sentiment among unschoolers, and that tolerance for Christian faiths (except, possibly, Unitarianism, which I'm not sure is even a Christian faith at all) is very low. Secular Humanism and environmentalism are frequently the religions of choice (and yes, I consider both to be religions, every bit as dogmatic as the "fundamentalists" they often profess to abhor), but any religion that can be viewed as opposite to Christianity is acceptable. Heaven forbid this bias or religious double standard is pointed out, though. On the email list I mentioned before, people were supposed to be welcome to discuss their own beliefs, but in reality, people who expressed their Christian sentiments would be accused of proselytising. Christian bashing was allowed, but if anyone pointed out that that's what was being done, there would be a great outcry of how it wasn't really bashing, and besides, the bashers were right. Point out the double standed, and there would be another outcry, denying that there was one at all. It got very tiring.
I used to consider myself an environmentalist. Growing up on a subsistance farm, it was kind of hard not to be aware of the environment. Of course, going through the public school system, I got some of the indoctrination that was increasingly becoming part of the curriculum at the time. I am a strong believer in responsible environmental stewardship. I cannot, however, call myself an environmentalist anymore. What passes for environmentalism today has become a religion. It's assumed that if you're "green" you are against capitalism, and that you agree with a long list ideas, whether it's views on global warming, the use of DDT, or that humans are a blight on the planet. Responsible environmental stewardship has been co-opted by a political ideology that I find very disturbing. Here, the political left/right divide is very strong. Among environmentalists, I see the word "conserivative" used as an accusatory insult a lot, and it's assumed that if one is "green" they are also "liberal."
I am not a Darwinist. Now, to many, this automatically makes me a Right Wing extremist, a religious quake, a young earth creationist/ID nutbar who denies science and evolotuion. They would, of course, be wrong but, like environmentalism, Darwinism has become dogmatic. Part of the problem is that most people things evolution = Darwinism, and it doesn't. Even what people think of Darwinian evolution doesn't have much to do with what Darwin actually said or, according to his writings, believed. It turns out there are all sorts of alternative theories of evolution out there, and Darwin's is not even close to answering the problems of evolution. Unschoolers, in my experience, have been the most viscious in attacking anyone who dares question Darwinism, and no matter how much one tries to point out that there are alternative theories that are very bit as legitimate, they insist on calling those who disagree with them as religious, anti-science, anti-evolution, Right Wing nutbars. It's not quite as bad as, say, disagreeing with AGW, but it gets pretty close at times.
Politically, I tend towards libertarianism, but I'm not a Libertarian (when I looked into the local political party, I found them to be a bunch of anarchists). While a lot of my views can be considered conservative, others are considered liberal or socialist. I find the definition of Classial Liberal fits my views very well, but it doesn't seem to exist any more. This leads to all sorts of confusion in conversations. When I mention I am an unschooler, I've had other unschoolers assume I am also Liberal, or Green. When I mention my views on AGW, people assume I'm Conservative. What I mention my thoughts on Darwinism vs evolution, I've found myself dismissed as a religious nut.
So where do I fit? I've never been one to put labels on people, but there is a purpose to categorization. I don't seem to be a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. I seem to be more like a dodecahedron trying to fit into a pentagon. Only one side fits at a time, but that leaves 11 other sides that don't fit anywhere.
This blog post was brought to my attention this morning, and I really enjoyed it. Here's an excerpt.
Now, on the whole, I've found unschoolers to be one of the most tolerant, kind, accepting groups of people there are. In my experience it's pretty rare to see an unschooler behave in a way that is blatantly racist or homophobic, and furthermore, unschoolers in general tend to be accepting of a wide variety of personalities and interests.
However.
I've also seen an awful lot of negative attitudes towards religious people, particularly Christians.
I have seen and experienced this myself a number of times, and I just admit, it has left me very jaded about my fellow unschoolers. In fact, I've found myself frequently questioning the tolerance of the self-professed tolerant, and along with anti-Christian sentiment, I would also include political, geographical and other ideological intolerance as well.
While the writer talks about how few unschoolers there are compared to more regulated styles of home based education, I would say that has a lot more to do with where one lives, and what support groups are available. In all our moves, I've found the majority of my fellow home schoolers are more on the unschooling side of things than the stereotypical school-at-home style. If fact, I don't recall ever meeting any hs'ing family in the school-at-home extreme, but I've met quite a few that could be considered "radical" unschoolers. (Personally, I don't think either extreme is a good idea.) Most of the families I've encountered over the years tend to fall more towards the unschooling side of things - they have routines and maybe even purchased curriculum, or make their kids do sit-down bookwork at certain times, but are still very relaxed about things.
There's a general assumption made about the different styles of home schoolers. School at home types are viewed as Conservative, Right Wing, and Christian (and, by extension, racist bigots) - the more regulated the schooling style, the more to the right their political views, and the more extreme their religion is assumed to be. There is also a tendancy to view this category of home schoolers as anti-science, as well - young earth creationists and the like. There is probably some truth to the stereotype (after all, there's a reason stereotypes come about), but I just haven't encountered it personally. I've only read about them.
Unschooling types, on the other hand, are assumed to be left leaning, more socialist, and have little or no religion at all (agnostic or athiest), to be Unitarian if they're Christian, or Pagan, Buddhist (or at least their version of Buddhism), Secular Humanists, etc. In my experience, the left leaning tendancy of unschoolers leads to a higher number of AGW believers, and greater levels of environmental extremism.
Over the years, I've seen a very strong divide between the home schooling ideologies, and unfortunately, the most bigoted, least tolerant views I've encountered have been from my fellow unschoolers. I used to be part of a large, active Canadian home school email list. I finally left it when a troll was allowed to spew his vile unchecked, while those who tried to counter his bile were clamped down on by the moderator. This, on top of the anti-Christian sentiment and other bigotry I saw allowed on the list was the final straw, and I left a community I'd been part of for almost a decade. Sadly, I am seeing similiar intolerance within our local community as well - especially when it comes to topics such as AGW and environmentalism.
We are an unschooling family. Not out of ideology, but because that's what worked with our older daughter, and we just kept it up with our younger. Quite simply, our attempts to school-at-home, even slightly, were failures and set the girls, especially Eldest, back considerably. My definition of unschooling, however, is very broad, and I think a lot of unschoolers would disagree with me. I do not, for example, have any problem with sit down bookwork, or using a curriculum, text books, etc. To me, these are just tools and methods to be used or discarded, based on need. Some families simply do better with a more regimented schedule, and some kids need a more orderly learning style. As far as I'm concerned, as long as the methods are used because they best suit the child, not because of external beliefs on how education "should" happen, it's still unschooling. I know teens who have chosen to go back to high school. As far as I'm concerned, they're still unschooling, because it was their choice to use the school system as an educational resource. If a family is unschooling because the parents decided that this was the "right" way to educate children, but ignore that their individual child actually thrives better on something more regulated, I cannot think of that as actually unschooling. It's still a method that's forced onto the child, regardless of that child's needs or desires. The key, to me, is that the methods used are suited to the individual child, even if the parents don't necessarily think it's a good idea.
We are a Christian family. I am an ex-Catholic, but not anti-Catholic. Over the decades, as I've looked at different religions, belief systems, and the different types of Christianity, I find I still have greater respect for Catholicism than any of the others. I would, in fact, still consider myself catholic, as the word means "universal church," and therefore really encompasses most, if not all, the Christian faiths. I respect people who follow different faiths, even if I don't agree with them. What I've found, however, is that there is a very strong anti-Christian sentiment among unschoolers, and that tolerance for Christian faiths (except, possibly, Unitarianism, which I'm not sure is even a Christian faith at all) is very low. Secular Humanism and environmentalism are frequently the religions of choice (and yes, I consider both to be religions, every bit as dogmatic as the "fundamentalists" they often profess to abhor), but any religion that can be viewed as opposite to Christianity is acceptable. Heaven forbid this bias or religious double standard is pointed out, though. On the email list I mentioned before, people were supposed to be welcome to discuss their own beliefs, but in reality, people who expressed their Christian sentiments would be accused of proselytising. Christian bashing was allowed, but if anyone pointed out that that's what was being done, there would be a great outcry of how it wasn't really bashing, and besides, the bashers were right. Point out the double standed, and there would be another outcry, denying that there was one at all. It got very tiring.
I used to consider myself an environmentalist. Growing up on a subsistance farm, it was kind of hard not to be aware of the environment. Of course, going through the public school system, I got some of the indoctrination that was increasingly becoming part of the curriculum at the time. I am a strong believer in responsible environmental stewardship. I cannot, however, call myself an environmentalist anymore. What passes for environmentalism today has become a religion. It's assumed that if you're "green" you are against capitalism, and that you agree with a long list ideas, whether it's views on global warming, the use of DDT, or that humans are a blight on the planet. Responsible environmental stewardship has been co-opted by a political ideology that I find very disturbing. Here, the political left/right divide is very strong. Among environmentalists, I see the word "conserivative" used as an accusatory insult a lot, and it's assumed that if one is "green" they are also "liberal."
I am not a Darwinist. Now, to many, this automatically makes me a Right Wing extremist, a religious quake, a young earth creationist/ID nutbar who denies science and evolotuion. They would, of course, be wrong but, like environmentalism, Darwinism has become dogmatic. Part of the problem is that most people things evolution = Darwinism, and it doesn't. Even what people think of Darwinian evolution doesn't have much to do with what Darwin actually said or, according to his writings, believed. It turns out there are all sorts of alternative theories of evolution out there, and Darwin's is not even close to answering the problems of evolution. Unschoolers, in my experience, have been the most viscious in attacking anyone who dares question Darwinism, and no matter how much one tries to point out that there are alternative theories that are very bit as legitimate, they insist on calling those who disagree with them as religious, anti-science, anti-evolution, Right Wing nutbars. It's not quite as bad as, say, disagreeing with AGW, but it gets pretty close at times.
Politically, I tend towards libertarianism, but I'm not a Libertarian (when I looked into the local political party, I found them to be a bunch of anarchists). While a lot of my views can be considered conservative, others are considered liberal or socialist. I find the definition of Classial Liberal fits my views very well, but it doesn't seem to exist any more. This leads to all sorts of confusion in conversations. When I mention I am an unschooler, I've had other unschoolers assume I am also Liberal, or Green. When I mention my views on AGW, people assume I'm Conservative. What I mention my thoughts on Darwinism vs evolution, I've found myself dismissed as a religious nut.
So where do I fit? I've never been one to put labels on people, but there is a purpose to categorization. I don't seem to be a square peg trying to fit into a round hole. I seem to be more like a dodecahedron trying to fit into a pentagon. Only one side fits at a time, but that leaves 11 other sides that don't fit anywhere.
Friday, January 01, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)