If, like me, you have friends who are incredibly hurt by what's happened in California, I have developed a few talking points to help foster understanding. I hope these are helpful:
Civil Rights
Everyone, regardless of race, gender, creed is allowed to marry – no one is withheld that right. It is the definition of what a marriage is that is in question, not who has the right to access it.
Church / State
I simply vote for what I believe is true, whether that is founded on religious beliefs or not, that is my moral obligation. I am not forcing my religious code on anyone by voting my conscience.
The Definition of Marriage
I believe that marriage = man + woman; that just as a man and a woman physically procreate, they socially marry. This belief can be held without any religious beliefs (though, in my case, all of my morals and values are founded on mine). My morals and values are not any less valid because they are religiously founded.
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label philosophy. Show all posts
Friday, November 07, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Of gchat and the great gatsby
I have often mused on the symbolism of the gchat "available" green dot and the green light of Daisy's dock in "The Great Gatsby." To the effect that I have, at times, put quotes from the novel as my gchat status. Such as the following:
KT "distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away"
across the expanse,
the sea of a dozen states,
your green light beckons
Tell me you, too, feel the romanticism of a flickering green light across the void.
KT "distinguished nothing except a single green light, minute and far away"
across the expanse,
the sea of a dozen states,
your green light beckons
Tell me you, too, feel the romanticism of a flickering green light across the void.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Some things get better with age (case in point)
As most of you know, I recently celebrated a birthday. Before you offer your congratulations (or, horrid thought, your condolences), you should know that I delight in each coming year... because I happen to improve as I age.
- I get smarter / wiser
if you check out my scrabulous stats, I have over 7 bingos. Seriously. GENIUS.
- I get nicer
speak up, anyone...
- I get better looking
I know, right?
Yes, my life really is that good.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
People are good
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Secularization & Families
Gordon sent me this article today.
It's quite long, but very thought provoking. The article contests the general axiom that religiosity leads to focus on / large families, and suggests that perhaps large families lead to religiosity.
An especially interesting read from a doctrinal perspective, as well as within the context of the The Family: A Proclamation to the World
... not to mention Malachi 4
It's quite long, but very thought provoking. The article contests the general axiom that religiosity leads to focus on / large families, and suggests that perhaps large families lead to religiosity.
An especially interesting read from a doctrinal perspective, as well as within the context of the The Family: A Proclamation to the World
... not to mention Malachi 4
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
How Stuff Works: Women
Research into the differences in men's and women's brains also seemed to support the idea that men should be better at math. Men have 6.5 times more gray matter in their brains than women do. Women have 10 times more white matter. Gray matter creates processing centers in the brain, and white matter creates the connections between them. In other words, men have lots of areas for processing concrete data -- like mathematical equations -- and women have lots of connections that allow them to see and process patterns [Source: Live Science].
What do you think about this?
What do you think about this?
Friday, March 09, 2007
Interesting Article
Tribal workers
Today's generation of high-earning professionals maintain that their personal fulfilment comes from their jobs and the hours they work. They should grow up, says Thomas Barlow.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited
A friend of mine recently met a young American woman who was studying on a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford. She already had two degrees from top US universities, had worked as a lawyer and as a social worker in the US, and somewhere along the way had acquired a black belt in kung fu.
Now, however, her course at Oxford was coming to an end and she was thoroughly angst-ridden about what to do next.
Her problem was no ordinary one. She couldn't decide whether she should make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer/management consultant, devote herself to charity work helping battered wives in disadvantaged communities, or go to Hollywood to work as a stunt double in kung fu films.
What most struck my friend was not the disparity of this woman's choices, but the earnestness and bad grace with which she ruminated on them. It was almost as though she begrudged her own talents, opportunities and freedom - as though the world had treated her unkindly by forcing her to make such a hard choice.
Her case is symptomatic of our times. In recent years, there has grown up a culture of discontent among the highly educated young, something that seems to flare up, especially, when people reach their late 20s and early 30s. It arises not from frustration caused by lack of opportunity, as may have been true in the past, but from an excess of possibilities.
Most theories of adult developmental psychology have a special category for those in their late 20s and early 30s. Whereas the early to mid-20s are seen as a time to establish one's mode of living, the late 20s to early 30s are often considered a period of reappraisal.
In a society where people marry and have children young, where financial burdens accumulate early, and where job markets are inflexible, such reappraisals may not last long. But when people manage to remain free of financial or family burdens, and where the perceived opportunities for alternative careers are many, the reappraisal is likely to be angst-ridden and long lasting.
Among no social group is this more true than the modern, international, professional elite: that tribe of young bankers, lawyers, consultants and managers for whom financial, familial, personal, corporate and (increasingly) national ties have become irrelevant.
Often they grew up in one country, were educated in another, and are now working in a third. They are independent, well paid, and enriched by experiences that many of their parents could only dream of. Yet, by their late 20s, many carry a sense of disappointment: that for all their opportunities, freedoms and achievements, life has not delivered quite what they had hoped.
At the heart of this disillusionment lies a new attitude towards work. The idea has grown up, in recent years, that work should not be just a means to an end a way to make money, support a family, or gain social prestige - but should provide a rich and fulfilling experience in and of itself.
Jobs are no longer just jobs; they are lifestyle options.
Recruiters at financial companies, consultancies and law firms have promoted this conception of work. Job advertisements promise challenge, wide experiences, opportunities for travel and relentless personal development.
Michael is a 33-year-old management consultant who has bought into this vision of late-20th century work. Intelligent and well-educated - with three degrees, including a doctorate - he works in Munich, and has a "stable, long-distance relationship" with a woman living in California. He takes 140 flights a year and works an average of 80 hours a week. Some weeks he works more than 100 hours.
When asked if he likes his job, he will say: "I enjoy what I'm doing in terms of the intellectual challenges."
Although he earns a lot, he doesn't spend much. He rents a small apartment, though he is rarely there, and has accumulated very few possessions. He justifies the long hours not in terms of wealth-acquisition, but solely as part of a "learning experience".
This attitude to work has several interesting implications, mostly to do with the shifting balance between work and non-work, employment and leisure.
Because fulfilling and engrossing work - the sort that is thought to provide the most intense learning experience - often requires long hours or captivates the imagination for long periods of time, it is easy to slip into the idea that the converse is also true: that just by working long hours, one is also engaging in fulfilling and engrossing work.
This leads to the popular fallacy that you can measure the value of your job and, therefore, the amount you are learning from it) by the amount of time you spend on it. And, incidentally, when a premium is placed on learning rather than earning, people are particularly susceptible to this form of self-deceit.
Thus, whereas in the past, when people in their 20s or 30s spoke disparagingly about nine-to-five jobs it was invariably because they were seen as too routine, too unimaginative, or too bourgeois. Now, it is simply because they don't contain enough hours.
Young professionals have not suddenly developed a distaste for leisure, but they have solidly bought into the belief that a 45-hour week necessarily signifies an unfulfilling job.
Jane, a 29-year-old corporate lawyer who works in the City of London, tells a story about working on a deal with another lawyer, a young man in his early 30s. At about 3am, he leant over the boardroom desk and said: Isn't this great? This is when I really love my job."
What most struck her about the remark was that the work was irrelevant (she says it was actually rather boring); her colleague simply liked the idea of working late. "It's as though he was validated, or making his life important by this," she says.
Unfortunately, when people can convince themselves that all they need do in order to lead fulfilled and happy lives is to work long hours, they can quickly start to lose reasons for their existence.
As they start to think of their employment as a lifestyle, fulfilling and rewarding of itself - and in which the reward is proportional to hours worked - people rapidly begin to substitute work for other aspects of their lives.
Michael, the management consultant, is a good example of this phenomenon. He is prepared to trade (his word) not just goods and time for the experience afforded by his work, but also a substantial measure of commitment in his personal relationships. In a few months, he is being transferred to San Francisco, where he will move in with his girlfriend. But he's not sure that living in the same house is actually going to change the amount of time he spends on his relationship. "Once I move over, my time involvement on my relationship will not change significantly. My job takes up most of my time and pretty much dominates what I do, when, where and how I do it," he says.
Moreover, the reluctance to commit time to a relationship because they are learning so much, and having such an intense and fulfilling time at work is compounded, for some young professionals, by a reluctance to have a long-term relationship at all. Today, by the time someone reaches 30, they could easily have had three or four jobs in as many different cities - which is not, as it is often portrayed, a function of an insecure global job-market, but of choice.
Robert is 30 years old. He has three degrees and has worked on three continents. He is currently working for the United Nations in Geneva. For him, the most significant deterrent when deciding whether to enter into a relationship is the likely transient nature of the rest of his life.
"What is the point in investing all this emotional energy and exposing myself in a relationship, if I am leaving in two months, or if I do not know what I am doing next year?" he says.
Such is the character of the modern, international professional, at least throughout his or her 20s. Spare time, goods and relationships, these are all willingly traded for the exigencies of work. Nothing is valued so highly as accumulated experience. Nothing is neglected so much as commitment.
With this work ethic - or perhaps one should call it a professional development ethic" - becoming so powerful, the globally mobile generation now in its late 20s and early 30s has garnered considerable professional success.
At what point, though, does the experience-seeking end? Kathryn is a successful American academic, 29, who bucked the trend of her generation: she recently turned her life round for someone else. She moved to the UK, specifically, to be with a man, a decision that she says few of her contemporaries understood.
"We're not meant to say: 'I made this decision for this person. Today, you're meant to do things for yourself. If you're willing to make sacrifices for others - especially if you're a woman - that's seen as a kind of weakness. I wonder, though, is doing things for yourself really empowerment, or is liberty a kind of trap?" she says.
For many, it is a trap that is difficult to break out of, not least because they are so caught up in a culture of professional development. And spoilt for choice, some like the American Rhodes Scholar no doubt become paralysed by their opportunities, unable to do much else in their lives, because they are so determined not to let a single one of their chances slip.
If that means minimal personal commitments well into their 30s, so be it. "Loneliness is better than boredom" is Jane's philosophy. And, although she knows "a lot of professional single women who would give it all up if they met a "rich man to marry", she remains far more concerned herself about finding fulfilment at work.
"I am constantly questioning whether I am doing the right thing here," she says. "There's an eternal search for a more challenging and satisfying option, a better lifestyle. You always feel you're not doing the right thing, always feel as if you should be striving for another goal," she says.
Jane, Michael, Robert and Kathryn grew up as part of a generation with fewer social constraints determining their futures than has been true for probably any other generation in history. They were taught at school that when they grew up they could "do anything", "be anything". It was an idea that was reinforced by popular culture, in films, books and television.
The notion that one can do anything is clearly liberating. But life without constraints has also proved a recipe for endless searching, endless questioning of aspirations. It has made this generation obsessed with self-development and determined, for as long as possible, to minimise personal commitments in order to maximise the options open to them.
One might see this as a sign of extended adolescence. Eventually, they will be forced to realise that living is as much about closing possibilities as it is about creating them.
Today's generation of high-earning professionals maintain that their personal fulfilment comes from their jobs and the hours they work. They should grow up, says Thomas Barlow.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited
A friend of mine recently met a young American woman who was studying on a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford. She already had two degrees from top US universities, had worked as a lawyer and as a social worker in the US, and somewhere along the way had acquired a black belt in kung fu.
Now, however, her course at Oxford was coming to an end and she was thoroughly angst-ridden about what to do next.
Her problem was no ordinary one. She couldn't decide whether she should make a lot of money as a corporate lawyer/management consultant, devote herself to charity work helping battered wives in disadvantaged communities, or go to Hollywood to work as a stunt double in kung fu films.
What most struck my friend was not the disparity of this woman's choices, but the earnestness and bad grace with which she ruminated on them. It was almost as though she begrudged her own talents, opportunities and freedom - as though the world had treated her unkindly by forcing her to make such a hard choice.
Her case is symptomatic of our times. In recent years, there has grown up a culture of discontent among the highly educated young, something that seems to flare up, especially, when people reach their late 20s and early 30s. It arises not from frustration caused by lack of opportunity, as may have been true in the past, but from an excess of possibilities.
Most theories of adult developmental psychology have a special category for those in their late 20s and early 30s. Whereas the early to mid-20s are seen as a time to establish one's mode of living, the late 20s to early 30s are often considered a period of reappraisal.
In a society where people marry and have children young, where financial burdens accumulate early, and where job markets are inflexible, such reappraisals may not last long. But when people manage to remain free of financial or family burdens, and where the perceived opportunities for alternative careers are many, the reappraisal is likely to be angst-ridden and long lasting.
Among no social group is this more true than the modern, international, professional elite: that tribe of young bankers, lawyers, consultants and managers for whom financial, familial, personal, corporate and (increasingly) national ties have become irrelevant.
Often they grew up in one country, were educated in another, and are now working in a third. They are independent, well paid, and enriched by experiences that many of their parents could only dream of. Yet, by their late 20s, many carry a sense of disappointment: that for all their opportunities, freedoms and achievements, life has not delivered quite what they had hoped.
At the heart of this disillusionment lies a new attitude towards work. The idea has grown up, in recent years, that work should not be just a means to an end a way to make money, support a family, or gain social prestige - but should provide a rich and fulfilling experience in and of itself.
Jobs are no longer just jobs; they are lifestyle options.
Recruiters at financial companies, consultancies and law firms have promoted this conception of work. Job advertisements promise challenge, wide experiences, opportunities for travel and relentless personal development.
Michael is a 33-year-old management consultant who has bought into this vision of late-20th century work. Intelligent and well-educated - with three degrees, including a doctorate - he works in Munich, and has a "stable, long-distance relationship" with a woman living in California. He takes 140 flights a year and works an average of 80 hours a week. Some weeks he works more than 100 hours.
When asked if he likes his job, he will say: "I enjoy what I'm doing in terms of the intellectual challenges."
Although he earns a lot, he doesn't spend much. He rents a small apartment, though he is rarely there, and has accumulated very few possessions. He justifies the long hours not in terms of wealth-acquisition, but solely as part of a "learning experience".
This attitude to work has several interesting implications, mostly to do with the shifting balance between work and non-work, employment and leisure.
Because fulfilling and engrossing work - the sort that is thought to provide the most intense learning experience - often requires long hours or captivates the imagination for long periods of time, it is easy to slip into the idea that the converse is also true: that just by working long hours, one is also engaging in fulfilling and engrossing work.
This leads to the popular fallacy that you can measure the value of your job and, therefore, the amount you are learning from it) by the amount of time you spend on it. And, incidentally, when a premium is placed on learning rather than earning, people are particularly susceptible to this form of self-deceit.
Thus, whereas in the past, when people in their 20s or 30s spoke disparagingly about nine-to-five jobs it was invariably because they were seen as too routine, too unimaginative, or too bourgeois. Now, it is simply because they don't contain enough hours.
Young professionals have not suddenly developed a distaste for leisure, but they have solidly bought into the belief that a 45-hour week necessarily signifies an unfulfilling job.
Jane, a 29-year-old corporate lawyer who works in the City of London, tells a story about working on a deal with another lawyer, a young man in his early 30s. At about 3am, he leant over the boardroom desk and said: Isn't this great? This is when I really love my job."
What most struck her about the remark was that the work was irrelevant (she says it was actually rather boring); her colleague simply liked the idea of working late. "It's as though he was validated, or making his life important by this," she says.
Unfortunately, when people can convince themselves that all they need do in order to lead fulfilled and happy lives is to work long hours, they can quickly start to lose reasons for their existence.
As they start to think of their employment as a lifestyle, fulfilling and rewarding of itself - and in which the reward is proportional to hours worked - people rapidly begin to substitute work for other aspects of their lives.
Michael, the management consultant, is a good example of this phenomenon. He is prepared to trade (his word) not just goods and time for the experience afforded by his work, but also a substantial measure of commitment in his personal relationships. In a few months, he is being transferred to San Francisco, where he will move in with his girlfriend. But he's not sure that living in the same house is actually going to change the amount of time he spends on his relationship. "Once I move over, my time involvement on my relationship will not change significantly. My job takes up most of my time and pretty much dominates what I do, when, where and how I do it," he says.
Moreover, the reluctance to commit time to a relationship because they are learning so much, and having such an intense and fulfilling time at work is compounded, for some young professionals, by a reluctance to have a long-term relationship at all. Today, by the time someone reaches 30, they could easily have had three or four jobs in as many different cities - which is not, as it is often portrayed, a function of an insecure global job-market, but of choice.
Robert is 30 years old. He has three degrees and has worked on three continents. He is currently working for the United Nations in Geneva. For him, the most significant deterrent when deciding whether to enter into a relationship is the likely transient nature of the rest of his life.
"What is the point in investing all this emotional energy and exposing myself in a relationship, if I am leaving in two months, or if I do not know what I am doing next year?" he says.
Such is the character of the modern, international professional, at least throughout his or her 20s. Spare time, goods and relationships, these are all willingly traded for the exigencies of work. Nothing is valued so highly as accumulated experience. Nothing is neglected so much as commitment.
With this work ethic - or perhaps one should call it a professional development ethic" - becoming so powerful, the globally mobile generation now in its late 20s and early 30s has garnered considerable professional success.
At what point, though, does the experience-seeking end? Kathryn is a successful American academic, 29, who bucked the trend of her generation: she recently turned her life round for someone else. She moved to the UK, specifically, to be with a man, a decision that she says few of her contemporaries understood.
"We're not meant to say: 'I made this decision for this person. Today, you're meant to do things for yourself. If you're willing to make sacrifices for others - especially if you're a woman - that's seen as a kind of weakness. I wonder, though, is doing things for yourself really empowerment, or is liberty a kind of trap?" she says.
For many, it is a trap that is difficult to break out of, not least because they are so caught up in a culture of professional development. And spoilt for choice, some like the American Rhodes Scholar no doubt become paralysed by their opportunities, unable to do much else in their lives, because they are so determined not to let a single one of their chances slip.
If that means minimal personal commitments well into their 30s, so be it. "Loneliness is better than boredom" is Jane's philosophy. And, although she knows "a lot of professional single women who would give it all up if they met a "rich man to marry", she remains far more concerned herself about finding fulfilment at work.
"I am constantly questioning whether I am doing the right thing here," she says. "There's an eternal search for a more challenging and satisfying option, a better lifestyle. You always feel you're not doing the right thing, always feel as if you should be striving for another goal," she says.
Jane, Michael, Robert and Kathryn grew up as part of a generation with fewer social constraints determining their futures than has been true for probably any other generation in history. They were taught at school that when they grew up they could "do anything", "be anything". It was an idea that was reinforced by popular culture, in films, books and television.
The notion that one can do anything is clearly liberating. But life without constraints has also proved a recipe for endless searching, endless questioning of aspirations. It has made this generation obsessed with self-development and determined, for as long as possible, to minimise personal commitments in order to maximise the options open to them.
One might see this as a sign of extended adolescence. Eventually, they will be forced to realise that living is as much about closing possibilities as it is about creating them.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Limerence
I thought this might be an interesting follow-up to my post on dating. Not related, really, but an interesting concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence
Monday, January 22, 2007
My thoughts on dating
In the last month or so I have finally been able to articulate my ideas of some of the key differences in the way men and women operate in dating. I'm posting them here at my roommate's request.
Women
For me, and for many women I know, my interest in specific men is very responsive. Much of my interest is influenced by (a) who spends time with me and invests in getting to know me, as well as (b) who demonstrates attraction / interest in me. The fact is, I may see a man that attracts me significantly, but it is the man who is coming around, who is calling me, who is taking an interest in me specifically, that I am giving my attention to, and who I am considering. I may not have interest initially, but I warm to him as he makes himself a part of my world. In the end, my dealbreakers may surface and the relationship may end, but when a man invests in me and my life, I will almost always start looking at him as a possibility. And so, I would say that for women, the key question is, "Who is in my world?" That is her answer of who she is more likely to develop significant interest in. I do not say that is who she is more likely to date, but it's who SHE, the woman, is more likely to develop attachment to.
What I take from this
A man should not be surprised if the women he spends time with want to date him. Even if up front a woman does not show any interest in him, she will warm to him (how much, how seriously, varies, but she will warm). I know it's not risky for him to hang out with girls platonically, but it is definitely risky for the women. Also, after a breakup, he really does need to remove himself from his ex-girlfriend's world so that she can move on. For women, it means we have to be much more cautious about who we give our time to. We have to recognize that if we don't want to date a man, we really shouldn't give him the time of day. Or, if we decide to give him a chance, we need to recognize and accept that we may change our minds, which I think can be a good thing, too :) And women need to cut the cord with the men they break up with or know it's not going anywhere with. Keeping them in your world is not going to help you find someone else.
Men
Men, on the other hand, have an interesting phenomenon from the very beginning. After a certain amount of exposure (and it doesn't take much), they know definitively whether or not a woman is in their list of "eligible" women to date. And what I mean is, all women are either eligible or ineligible. Ineligible meaning that they are an unequivocable "NO" and that there is nothing that the woman (or the man, for that matter) can do to make her eligible. A woman who is not on the man's list of eligible women, can flirt, can encourage, can even have a brilliant connection with a man, but he will not consider her with serious interest. He may even date her or marry her, but usually he will drop her before she can wear him down to that point. He may even acknowledge to himself that this woman would be a great fit "on paper" - but she is not in the eligible group and so she will never really have a hold on him.
It is important to note that eligibility is not purely driven by appearance. In fact, men cannot really give a rationale for why one woman is and another isn't. They feel very awkward and don't know how to explain it, but they know that it is true. No amount of exposure or bonding with a woman can change her categorization - which women have a particularly hard time understanding, being that we are the complete opposite. Women cannot understand how a man, after getting to know us and being quite intimate with us, can still have absolutely no interest.
However, just because a woman is on the eligible list, it doesn't mean that she is a shoe-in. But it does mean that this is where she can act - with a very good chance of results. When a woman is eligible, it means that she is "datable" - she is someone to whom the man will be responsive, in the way that women are more generally responsive. If she flirts, encourages, banters, and pays attention to him, she is not wasting her time. He may not respond (for a variety of reasons), but she is not wasting her time like she is with a man for whom she is not eligible.
I have noticed that for a man, those (eligible) women who are encouraging and flirting and attentive seem to "rise in the queue" in his mind and interest - they are the ones that he is thinking about and focusing on. So it is key for a woman to be very responsive if she is interested. A woman may be eligible for a man, but if she isn't doing anything, he will end up paying his attention to someone else who is.
What I take from this
To me, this is really a relief - I at least feel like I know what I have control over and what I don't have control over. All I have to do is identify which men I am eligible for, and those are the ones I need to invest in and encourage. I find it very satisfying when I can tell I am of interest to a man (sometimes I have significant interest also, sometimes I don't, but it's always satisfying to know!) and I try to be more philsophical about the men whose list I am not on. I always assume I am not eligible for men who give me no signals. It can be somewhat discouraging if I'm not really feeling like I am on anyone's list, but I find it comforting that at least I am not wasting my time on them.
Also, what this means to me is that it is ridiculous for me to hang out a lot with a man hoping that he will come around and fall for me. If he hasn't already, then it's most likely I am not eligible and never will be. Basically, I am the one at risk because I will probably fall for him as he continues to be in my world - and yet I will never get any results.
So I'm interested to hear what you think - if this rings true to you. It makes sense with my experiences in dating and from what I've observed from my male friends.
Women
For me, and for many women I know, my interest in specific men is very responsive. Much of my interest is influenced by (a) who spends time with me and invests in getting to know me, as well as (b) who demonstrates attraction / interest in me. The fact is, I may see a man that attracts me significantly, but it is the man who is coming around, who is calling me, who is taking an interest in me specifically, that I am giving my attention to, and who I am considering. I may not have interest initially, but I warm to him as he makes himself a part of my world. In the end, my dealbreakers may surface and the relationship may end, but when a man invests in me and my life, I will almost always start looking at him as a possibility. And so, I would say that for women, the key question is, "Who is in my world?" That is her answer of who she is more likely to develop significant interest in. I do not say that is who she is more likely to date, but it's who SHE, the woman, is more likely to develop attachment to.
What I take from this
A man should not be surprised if the women he spends time with want to date him. Even if up front a woman does not show any interest in him, she will warm to him (how much, how seriously, varies, but she will warm). I know it's not risky for him to hang out with girls platonically, but it is definitely risky for the women. Also, after a breakup, he really does need to remove himself from his ex-girlfriend's world so that she can move on. For women, it means we have to be much more cautious about who we give our time to. We have to recognize that if we don't want to date a man, we really shouldn't give him the time of day. Or, if we decide to give him a chance, we need to recognize and accept that we may change our minds, which I think can be a good thing, too :) And women need to cut the cord with the men they break up with or know it's not going anywhere with. Keeping them in your world is not going to help you find someone else.
Men
Men, on the other hand, have an interesting phenomenon from the very beginning. After a certain amount of exposure (and it doesn't take much), they know definitively whether or not a woman is in their list of "eligible" women to date. And what I mean is, all women are either eligible or ineligible. Ineligible meaning that they are an unequivocable "NO" and that there is nothing that the woman (or the man, for that matter) can do to make her eligible. A woman who is not on the man's list of eligible women, can flirt, can encourage, can even have a brilliant connection with a man, but he will not consider her with serious interest. He may even date her or marry her, but usually he will drop her before she can wear him down to that point. He may even acknowledge to himself that this woman would be a great fit "on paper" - but she is not in the eligible group and so she will never really have a hold on him.
It is important to note that eligibility is not purely driven by appearance. In fact, men cannot really give a rationale for why one woman is and another isn't. They feel very awkward and don't know how to explain it, but they know that it is true. No amount of exposure or bonding with a woman can change her categorization - which women have a particularly hard time understanding, being that we are the complete opposite. Women cannot understand how a man, after getting to know us and being quite intimate with us, can still have absolutely no interest.
However, just because a woman is on the eligible list, it doesn't mean that she is a shoe-in. But it does mean that this is where she can act - with a very good chance of results. When a woman is eligible, it means that she is "datable" - she is someone to whom the man will be responsive, in the way that women are more generally responsive. If she flirts, encourages, banters, and pays attention to him, she is not wasting her time. He may not respond (for a variety of reasons), but she is not wasting her time like she is with a man for whom she is not eligible.
I have noticed that for a man, those (eligible) women who are encouraging and flirting and attentive seem to "rise in the queue" in his mind and interest - they are the ones that he is thinking about and focusing on. So it is key for a woman to be very responsive if she is interested. A woman may be eligible for a man, but if she isn't doing anything, he will end up paying his attention to someone else who is.
What I take from this
To me, this is really a relief - I at least feel like I know what I have control over and what I don't have control over. All I have to do is identify which men I am eligible for, and those are the ones I need to invest in and encourage. I find it very satisfying when I can tell I am of interest to a man (sometimes I have significant interest also, sometimes I don't, but it's always satisfying to know!) and I try to be more philsophical about the men whose list I am not on. I always assume I am not eligible for men who give me no signals. It can be somewhat discouraging if I'm not really feeling like I am on anyone's list, but I find it comforting that at least I am not wasting my time on them.
Also, what this means to me is that it is ridiculous for me to hang out a lot with a man hoping that he will come around and fall for me. If he hasn't already, then it's most likely I am not eligible and never will be. Basically, I am the one at risk because I will probably fall for him as he continues to be in my world - and yet I will never get any results.
So I'm interested to hear what you think - if this rings true to you. It makes sense with my experiences in dating and from what I've observed from my male friends.
Friday, November 10, 2006
The Riddle of the World by Alexander Pope
Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Plac'd on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his Mind or Body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err,
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself abus'd, or disabus'd;
Created half to rise,and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of Truth, in endless error hurl'd:
The glory, jest and riddle of the world!
The proper study of Mankind is Man.
Plac'd on this isthmus of a middle state,
A being darkly wise, and rudely great:
With too much knowledge for the Sceptic side,
With too much weakness for the Stoic's pride,
He hangs between; in doubt to act, or rest,
In doubt to deem himself a God, or Beast;
In doubt his Mind or Body to prefer,
Born but to die, and reas'ning but to err,
Alike in ignorance, his reason such,
Whether he thinks too little, or too much:
Chaos of Thought and Passion, all confus'd;
Still by himself abus'd, or disabus'd;
Created half to rise,and half to fall;
Great lord of all things, yet a prey to all;
Sole judge of Truth, in endless error hurl'd:
The glory, jest and riddle of the world!
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
If you are not too long, I will wait here for you all my life. ~Oscar Wilde
I've been trying to figure out exactly what this quote means. Oscar Wilde alternates between the profound and the incisive, so it's hard to judge solely by author. My brother thought it quite humorous, and yet I find it quite bittersweet.
I guess what I find rather pathetic is the thought of the things one will do when told what one wants to hear. Or the lengths one will go to to believe it, even when the rationale for trust is gone. Whether it is devotion or delusion, it's just rather sad.
I guess what I find rather pathetic is the thought of the things one will do when told what one wants to hear. Or the lengths one will go to to believe it, even when the rationale for trust is gone. Whether it is devotion or delusion, it's just rather sad.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
On momentum, direction, and constraints
"Their paths diverged as they flew... Some of them forgot they were weightless and let go of the wall... Now they drifted lazily in many directions, waving their arms, trying to swim...Everything depends on how you push off, the course you set when you start. It means we're going to have to get very good at controlling our launches and rebounds or we're all going to end up in the middle of nowhere."(Orson Scott Card: Ender's Game)
The reason this quote intrigues me is because of the similarity it has to the situation of the unconstrained, independent, limitless young single adult. I am convinced that it is actually very dangerous to be one.
Our paths do diverge as we go. It is natural and exciting that they do. But sometimes it is easy to forget that there are so few constraints and we can drift lazily - forgetting what our life's purpose is, forgetting the work that we can be doing.
To be without constraints, without a set direction, without limits is to lack the ability to progress. In anything - math, science, language - there are rules, laws, and limits. Whether it is a formula, a law, or grammar rules, it is necessary to define them and to follow them if anything is going to be built and if progress is going to be made. If these constraints do not exist, it can be paralysing. How can one begin to filter, to choose, to make decisions? One can easily lose momentum and end up floating...
We must catch hold, build momentum, and take off; without letting the weightlessness distract, discourage, or paralyze - only then can we navigate and begin to build.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)