If you like to read a number of Blogs, and those Bloggers are engaged in a cross blog conversation, I highly recommend using either Netscape 7 or Mozilla 1.2.
Both of these browsers have a tab feature that makes reading these conversations so easy. You simply open each Blog in a separate tab. The name of each Blog is displayed in the tab and you can jump from one to the other simply by clicking or tabbing through the tabs.
I love it!
Shelley wrote, "…I did so because the behavior Halley attributes to generic Woman can be generalized to fit all women, and that means me. And this type of behavior, as described, violates every bit of honor and pride in being a woman that I have. It violates every bit of honor and pride in being a woman of all women I know."
I have to agree with that sentiment, but I'd like to take it one step further and say that it's all about respect.
How can you respect someone who uses such tactics? How can you respect someone who gets their way with such tactics? And how can you respect anyone who succumbs to such tactics?
When we categorize people by pigeonholing them into stereotypes, we take away our respect, and with it some measure of their dignity. That's what's so bad about stereotypes. When people fall into stereotypical behavior patterns - for whatever reason - it seems to me that they are displaying a certain lack of pride. It seems that they lack the energy, the imagination or the courage to stand up and be individuals.
Respect has to be earned, and you can't earn it by crying, flirting, or stomping your feet. You earn it by being good at what you do - by working at your craft, by learning and by doing.
Sometimes you don't get it, even when you deserve it and that's not fair. But then again, the world doesn't seem to be a fair place. However I think you can get respect, when you earn it, from at least some people and hopefully you get it from those who count.
No matter what you do or who you are - male or female, gay or straight, white or black, purple or orange - you are not going to be respected by everyone in all circumstances. It's just not going to happen. If you know that you've done your best, sometimes you just have to chalk lack of respect up to the ignorance of those around you. You have to have the confidence to realize that the fault lies with them, not with you.
That said, I want to address something Mike Golby wrote.
He wrote, "Can the breakup of the modern Western family, now being exported worldwide, not also be partly attributed to a wholesale eschewing of 'institutional doctrines' containing good and bad attributes - but which, till a few decades ago, seemed to work, even if somewhat precariously or miraculously? Are women, worldwide, better off today than they were two centuries ago? Are men? "
And he also asks, "What am I missing? Where, exactly, is the unequal treatment?"
This is all about perspective. Most times you have to be in just the right position to see the whole picture.
If one person is standing on the ground in front of a wall that they can just barely see over and another person is sitting in a tree they have a different view of the scene before them.
The person in the tree can see a field with cows and sheep and perhaps a farmer tending the animals. That person might also see a brook flowing through the field with a grove of trees growing around it.
The person standing on the ground can probably only see the tops of those trees and maybe one or two of the animals, depending on where they are standing at the time.
Or say that both people are on the ground, but on opposite sides of the wall. The person in the field can see what is behind the person on the other side. They may see, not the field, but a road. Perhaps there is a car and a farmhouse with children playing in the yard.
Each one is standing basically in the same place, but they are on opposite sides of the wall and facing in the opposite direction. If they could change positions, they could then see what the other person sees, but let's say that they can't change positions.
Each could swear that their view is the correct one. Each could say that the other doesn't know what he/she is talking about. They could argue about it until each was blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that each one has a different perspective on what is basically the same scene.
The only way for them to settle this argument is to respect that the other person sees what they see. They are not imagining what they see, and what they see is real from their point of view.
I think that is the big problem with any discussion like the one of gender gap. We women can't change places with the men anymore than they can change places with us. No matter how earnestly or hard we try, we simply can not see life from their exact point of view. Imagining is not the same as actually viewing. (But points are given for trying <g>)
So it all comes back again to the issue of respect. We must simply respect and trust that the other person truly sees - or feels - what they do. If we could all do this, it would certainly solve many of life's great conflicts. Unfortunately, accepting that the other person truly sees what they see often means we must surrender some of the "truths" we have used as security blankets all our lives - and that is far easier said, than done.
I keep promising myself that I will blog whatever thoughts happen to be running through my head when I sit down at my keyboard. If I'm going to keep that promise, I guess I'll have to stop reading other blogs.
Instead of writing about my father or why I intensely dislike George W. Bush, I find my self drawn into the discussion of "girlism" that is taking place on several blogs.
Shelley/Burningbird asks, "Is this difference a product of our genes? Is there a 'tweak' gene that boys have and girls don't?"
I seemed to have inherited one of those "tweak" genes. I'm not sure where I got it from. Neither of my parents was much of a tinkerer - unless you count the model railroad that my father built. As I recall, that involved more putting things together, than taking them apart.
As far back as I can remember, I've always wanted to know how things worked. My usual victims were clocks. Clocks were fairly simple to take apart. Putting them back together was always a challenge, though. I always ended up with parts left over.
I remember a music box my father had that had a glass top so you could see inside. That music box fascinated me because I could see how it worked. I never got to take it apart though. I knew where the lines were drawn - for the most part.
While I was somewhat fascinated with what made cars run, I never got into auto mechanics. Cars were dirty and smelled. I preferred taking things apart that wouldn't get my hands dirty. I guess that was the girl in me making it's presence known.
I've always been an odd duck. I never quite fit in with other girls. I seemed to be more comfortable with the boys. Most of my friends were boys - and yet I wasn't one of them either. I never really learned all the flirty things other girls did, and I think that's why I earned a certain respect from the boys I hung out with.
In some ways that was a disadvantage, because I never had boys lining up to date me, but I had enough to keep me from being a total wall flower. I had their respect and somehow that was more important to me.
Throughout the rest of my life, I've always taken a certain measure of pride in the possession of that respect. Sometimes getting it was a bit of a challenge. My last job was in the heating and air conditioning field. As a customer service rep, I made a significant effort to learn the product and how it worked - with the exception of the electrical wiring. No matter how hard I try, I simply can't get the whole concept of electricity. But I was a whiz at the mechanical stuff. I could take customers through the whole process and in plain English, to boot!
After I had done one of these spiels, I once had a customer tell me, "Wow - you're pretty technical. I bet you're good with a hammer!" What one had to do with the other, I have no idea.
Yet through it all, I still had the occasional customer who insisted on having one of the men explain the whole thing, exactly the way I did. They accepted what he said, but didn't accept my advice. That brought the whole gender thing home and made me angry. But as much as I would rant and rage against it, I knew I couldn't do anything about it. Some men simply do not get it. They don't have the vision. I suspect these are the same men who fall for the short-skirted, sexy "girlism" ploy.
If I got something that way (if I were so inclined, but I'm not), I wouldn't have the respect and that's the key for me. So using the "girlism" tricks aren't for me and I don't think I have any of those tricks in my arsenal.
Besides - I'm too old for that nonsense.
I wanted to write this after the last election, but due to my web host search and the frustration with Blogger, I didn't really have a space to do it. So working on the theory that late is better than never ... here goes.
Like many voters in the USA, I have a lot of problems with our current electoral process. Choosing a candidate to vote for - finding a good candidate to vote for - among those who are running, frequently ends up being a choice between the lessor of two evils. Frankly, I'm getting tired of not being able to vote for a candidate; I always seem to be casting my vote against the other guy. I truly wish we could have the option of casting a vote for "None of the above." That choice should be available on every ballot. Perhaps this would cure the voter apathy in this country.
So many people feel - why bother - so they don't vote. When you consider how many people didn't vote in the last presidential election, added to those who voted for someone other than George Bush, the majority of the US population did not chose to have George Bush as their president - yet here he is.
Now I don't like George Bush. I didn't like Al Gore either, but I voted for him in a futile effort to keep GWB out of the Oval office. So much for that. The last presidential candidate that I actually voted for was Gerald Ford. He lost too. I don't have a very good track record.
This past election I had a clear choice on the local level. My town has an all Democratic council. Because they are all of the same party and the party organization is strong in this town, they tend to do things behind closed doors. The individual council members are often coerced by the party management to vote the way the party management wants rather than what is in the best interest of the citizens. If they don't go along, they don't get to run again. So I voted for the Republican candidate - a nice guy with good intentions, but not much experience. He lost.
On the county level, I had a choice between the current mayor of my town - a Democrat, and a former mayor of my town - a Republican. Since I can't stand the current mayor, and I know and like the former Mayor - I voted for him. He lost.
Getting up into the Senate and Congressional races ... for the Senate, I had a choice between sending GWB another Republican, or Robert Torricelli who was censured for shady campaign financing. Just Ducky!
When Senator Torricelli backed out of the race a little over one month before Election Day, The Democrats chose former Senator Frank Lautenberg to run in his place. The
Republicans raised a ruckus and took the situation to court. The NJ Supreme Court decided that the right of the people to a choice of candidates outweighed an election rule that says you have to resolve such problems by a certain deadline (which had passed). The Republicans cried foul and declared that the Supreme Court was meddling in the election (sound vaguely familiar <g>).
I didn't like Frank Lautenberg when he ran before, so I certainly wasn't going to vote for him this time. What a dilemma!
I finally voted for the Green Party candidate in protest. Where is that "None of the above" option when you need it? The Green party candidate lost.
I didn't vote for a congressional representative because I dislike the
Democratic candidate (who won), and again I refused to send another Republican to aid GWB. There was no Green Party candidate running against them.
I really hate the way we chose our candidates. Independents rarely have a chance because all the financing comes from either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. Rare is the candidate who can afford to pay the expenses of even a local election.
The Big Two parties get much of their financing from major corporations and Political Action Committees - all of whom expect favors after the election. This leaves the candidates in debt to these organizations - more so than to the people who voted for them. So guess who gets the short shrift when it comes to voting on issues that effect us all.
Another thing that bugs me is all the negative campaign ads. Why can't they just tell me what problems they see and what they would do to fix them? I don't want to know why they think their opponent is bad; I want to know why I think they themselves are good.
I want to see some new faces on the political scene. I want to be able to vote for a good candidate who is not beholden to anyone but the voters who put him/her in office. And once he gets there I want him/her to remember at all times that he serves at our will.
Is that asking too much?
I know I've said that before, but this time I really am back. I have finally moved my whole web site to a new web host (ProNic Solutions - if anyone is interested).
As you can see I have also moved my Blog here, and I'm now using Moveable Type instead of Blogger so there have been some big changes.
Now that most of the moving is done, I still have some decorating and cosmetic changes to make. I hope you'll stick with me through it all.
I'm still learning a lot. My new web host supports PHP and MySQL, so I've got a lot of learning ahead of me. I hope to make some portions of my "house" dynamic so I can change the content more freguently.
If you're reading my Blog, I hope you will also visit my home as well.
That's all for now, but I hope to keep up with this now that, I've got a better way of doing it.