Consent

Recently some prominent celebrities made some unfortunate statements.  Chanson has some good analysis on the subject.

My first caveat is that I'm not 100% familiar of the specific situation, who said what, what may have happened.

But it sounds like there are some older males (I'm considering over 35 old) who are adjusting to society's new understanding of consent.

Because there is a new understanding of consent.

I think about the rape scene in Sixteen Candles.   I'm embarrassed to say that I was much older (much too old) when I became aware that the behavior in the movie (sex with someone who is too drunk) was rape.  I was never taught that was rape (particularly growing up mormon).

That's why the conversation about consent is important.

I'm not surprised that there are older people (male and female) who hadn't revisited this.  It's true, sex and relationships  can be complicated.  And our society changes (our ideas of appropriate/acceptable change).  This is a good thing.

And I think this should be part of a larger conversation in our society.  Conversations can lead to new understandings. I wonder if it's frightening for people.  It's not comfortable or lauded to admit one was wrong.  Some people will do whatever is possible to not admit they made a mistake.

I'm glad our society has changed and continues to change.  I'm glad we're having a conversation as a society; it means that beliefs have changed.  For a long time, women simply had to accept the status quo - and many men didn't realize they were doing anything wrong (privilege).

I'm not trying to defend the rape apologists here (perhaps I am defending the rape apologists).  What I'm saying is, it's okay to change your mind and to admit you were mistaken.  Consent is a good thing (particularly as an over 35 male) to revisit and gain a new understanding.  Our society sees consent differently than we did, so it behooves all of us to understand why and what that means for our daily lives.

It's just business

Everybody knows that it's now or never

Everybody knows that it's me or you...

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

"Everybody Knows" - Leonard Cohen

At one of my first jobs, a co-worker mentioned that he hadn't planned on working for his prior employer for ten years.  He just woke up one day and found that he had been there ten years.  At the time, I was skeptical. 

Yet I have found myself in a similar position.

In the fifth season of Mad Men, Don takes Peggy's work for granted.  He tells her that everything she's earned is from him.  As the last straw (not surprising for a fictional drama), he throws money in her face.

When she discusses a move with the person who really discovered her, her friend reminds her that Don wouldn't think twice about taking a business opportunity.  He bluntly remarks that it's just business.  Don wouldn't think about it emotionally, in terms of loyalty.  Peggy ends up taking the promotion (and raise) and leaves the advertising agency.

It's a scene I've thought about often in the past few months.  Truth isn't always stranger than fiction.

I have decided to take a new job opportunity.  I've also woken up after being at my employer for over ten years.  It's amazing to think about what's changed in ten years on the internet. 

I've learned a lot.  I've worked hard (in fact, that's what my boss specifically said about me when I mentioned I was leaving.  That I was a hard worker.  Go me!  That's exactly what I want people to know about me). 

But I've hit a glass ceiling of sorts.  And, much like Peggy's character, I know I'm not really getting what I'm worth. 

I think the modern workplace is structured this way.  It's human to take people and situations for granted.

Multiple people have told me that the only person looking out for my career is me.  It's true.  My company isn't looking out for my career.  And some of my co-workers - if they had a good opportunity, they would also take it without looking back, without thinking twice.

For me, the change is odd.  I tend to stay in situations simply because I've been there a long time, not because they are what's best for me.  Sometimes I stay longer than I need to.  And I admittedly have some anxiety about the whole thing.  Part of me would rather stay where it's safe, to stay with what's known. 

But life is too short. And this is just how business works. 

Suicide

I was shocked and saddened to learn of the death of a friend/acquaintance from college.  We weren't close - we weren't even friends on a certain social networking site. I found out about his death through the alumni class notes (which should say a lot).  But at a small school with 1200 students, you pretty much know everyone, or know someone who knows them.  And we had friends in common.

I'm struck by two things.  First, I'm struck that he was really the last person (or one of the last people) I would have expected to suffer from severe depression and to take his own life*. 

So what does that say? Evidently just because you know someone's public persona (and you've debated philosophy with them once or twice) doesn't mean you know anything about their inner life - who they really are.

*Let me explain what I mean.  David Foster Wallace suffered from severe depression and wrote about it eloquently. I was saddened but not shocked by his death for that reason.  It may sound callous or crass to say, but that's my take.  When people suffer from a disease, it's not unexpected when you lose them to that disease.

So I return to - how much did I know anyone? The news had me wondering "WTF" all last week - I initially thought it was some sort of elaborate joke.

Second, I question my own perspective about my friends from college - many are all stuck in my mind permanently where we were fifteen years ago.  I've changed - a lot - but I keep expecting this nebulous "they" to remain just where they were. 

Sure, some people have gotten married (and divorced) and had kids - and I see lovely photos of their lives on fb. 

I don't know, this guy seemed so put together and successful.  I could have easily seen him running for office, a professor or successful businessman, just about anything.  Fifteen years ago, the future seemed wide open. 

Things change.  What the heck happened?

My husband says I have to get used to this, the first set of friends dying from 18 -25, the second set after 35.  I don't think the losses will ever not be shocking.


Finally - suicide in itself makes people sad and uncomfortable - we've changed from the 1960s where it was taboo to discuss...But even today - it does seem taboo to discuss.

Groundhog Day

There is a lot about the movie Groundhog day the resonates with me.  In particular, doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.

In the movie, of course, the main character is doing the same thing over and over because he has to.  He's trapped reliving the same day.

I love the final scene in the movie - where he wakes up and it's a new day.  And the beauty of walking out into the new snow.

I believe strongly that life can be like this.  People can get trapped in doing the same thing over and over (I can get trapped) - but I can also choose to make changes.  People can, indeed change.  

No matter what their age or circumstances. 

I have (personally) been going back through and cleaning up some stuff.  Stuff that I will own - where I made mistakes.  It's a pretty powerful process, and throughout it I am reminded of that scene in Groundhog Day.  Today is the day that I get to start fresh with some of my relationships. The freedom is a little daunting - but I'm looking forward to it.

2009: Questioning Assumptions

It's the time of year when people make top ten (or top thirteen) lists.  Reflecting on this year, what jumps out at me is that this year, I worked at questioning my assumptions. 

Questioning, for me, is nothing new.  I've toyed with writing my own "This I believe" essay, and usually when I think about it, it goes right back to being curious and inquisitive (for me personally).

The cliche is that life is a journey, change is the only constant, etc. 

When I started out on my own, however, I didn't realize that so much that I knew or intrinsically understood would change.  That some things I depended on wouldn't be there, but other unexpected things *would* be there.  And, this isn't an every five years or every ten years exercise.

Yearly, monthly, even daily, I come into contact with things that force me to adjust my expectations, to process new information and to set new boundaries.  On my good days, I recognize just how much I have to be grateful for (which is, frankly, quite a lot). 

Some of my more jaded readers might question - isn't that what everyone does?  Doesn't everyone ask lots of questions and take inventories of their actions/behaviors?  But the reality, which I see here in my 30s, is that not everyone does.  Some are just trying to survive - or to make it through the day.  For some, it seems to me it goes back to Maslow's hierarchy of needs. 

This must sound out of touch without concrete examples - but since I have such a wide variety of reader(s), I don't want to give away too many details. I do think this post "the hamster wheel" is a good example.

Figuring out that I had to take care of myself, that I am responsible for myself and my feelings.  Again, the assumption I had was that I would take care of other people, and in return, when I was in need, they would take care of me.  All of this unspoken, of course.  I'm not advocating radical selfishness here, just that setting boundaries, saying no, speaking up about my feelings was/is important.  No one else is going to do it for me, or is even able to do it for me.  As always, this sound painfully obvious, but it really wasn't for me.  Not inconveniencing other people, disappointing people (particularly loved ones) was a greater motivation. 

Various relationships started and ended this year of friends and family members.  And this year, for the first time, (see here and here)  I realized that what these loved ones were doing, which relationships they were in (or not in) was really none of my business. 

I confess, I had always assumed that other people's relationships did affect me. 

I don't know why I thought this.  And I knew that before (people's relationships are their own), but I had never acknowledged that there was a part of me that really did want to get in the middle, wanted to understand, wanted to label whatever else was going on for other people. Now it's true, figuring out whether or not to invite someone to a gathering (if the relationship is rocky) or whether or not to send a request to someone (an ex) on a popular social networking site can be difficult/tricky. 

But in the end, however, it goes back to letting go of control, and the illusion of control.  And without question, I have no control over other people or their relationships.  Again, seems obvious to other people, but for some reason it just wasn't for me.

So all in all, it was a good year.  I'm glad to keep growing and re-evaulating everything.  Thanks for staying with me throughout this journey.

Frost/Nixon

Former President Richard Nixon is not really a controversial figure - as he's universally criticized. The criticism comes from both the left and the right. What seems to be more rare is someone who sees him as a flawed or tragic figure.

I recently watched Frost/Nixon. I had remembered my parents' opinions about Nixon, and other observations I heard over the years from various adults, teachers, community leaders.

What shocked and surprised me (after watching the film) was President Nixon's arrogance. And his defense of his behavior reminded me of the past royal "divine right of kings". So it's no wonder that a country built on opposition to monarchy would react so strongly to such behavior from its president.

Nixon's defense was that the president should be able to do anything - because they were the president. A turning point in the interview was when confronted with newsreels and the damage done in Cambodia - Pres. Nixon asserted "We should have gone into Cambodia earlier!" He wouldn't/couldn't admit that his decision was a mistake - or that it may have led to the regime of Pol Pot (a horrible dictator/totalitarian regime).

So I believe it's always interesting to hear a person's defense of their own wrongdoing.

I appreciated the movie because I thought I knew a lot about the controversy, I thought I knew of the events surrounding Watergate. I had read "All the President's Men", and I thought I knew most of the characters. I think I forgot just how angry and disappointed so many Americans were in the cover-up of Watergate, and how self-righteous Nixon could be. That he would claim to be a victim instead of admitting fault.



What struck me after watching the film was the reminder that in every situation, particularly political situations, people will argue for and against. What remains important (even critical) is to weigh the information and evaluate what we know in terms of facts. And being willing to change our minds about what we hear - when there is new evidence either way.

I did appreciate at one point in the interview (I'm assuming this happened in the actual interviews), he (Nixon) admitted that his actions might have hurt the American people and damaged their faith in their government.

Also, no matter what a person's crimes, to remember them with compassion - or at least as much compassion as we can muster.

It's not that we have to approve of what they did or forget what happened. But to remember that each human deserves some modicum of respect.

And just as one of the researchers (who had written two books scathingly critical of Pres. Nixon) was in a situation where he had to shake Nixon's hand - sometimes we are caught in a web of social standards and niceties. Sometimes we are not in control - just as a leader is not completely in control. It's a fact we/people tend to forget - it's nice to blame an individual for everything that happens - but that's not always the whole story.

It's strange to have some sympathy for Nixon, but after watching the film, I find I do have some sympathy for him. Perhaps that shows the genius of the play and the movie - and why it garnered so many Academy award nods.

Confessions of an Ugly Stepsister

When one thinks of the cinderella fairy tale, I typically think of either the disney version, or this Caldecott award winning version.


Cinderella is good and sweet to everyone, despite being forced to labor for her wicked step-mother and step-sisters.

So Gregory MaGuire's version was quite refreshing - because the story was more complicated and the characters more complex than the stereotypes. I liked the novel more than Wicked, as it was more semi-based in reality (set during the tulip bulb mania in the Netherlands during the seventeenth century).

If you would like to read the novel and are not interested in spoilers, you may want to stop reading now.


***SPOILERS AHEAD****

One of the things I've been musing about recently is what motivates a person to change. I think "Confessions" does an excellent job of explaining when a person will change - and includes the prices that we pay for change.

I think a person will not change until he or she is completely ready to - until they can no longer "make it work". They choose to do something different only at the time when getting by stops working.

That's when a person will do something different - not usually before.

How this leads back to "Confessions" is that Clara, the Cinderella character, is in a deep depression over the death of her mother. She was raised to have certain privileges (some might say spoiled) - and she (Clara) can't deal with the changes or her own grief. Her father is unresponsive and won't defend his daughter against the tyranny of her (new) step-mother. The reader has sympathy for her/Clara (I have sympathy for her) - but then she becomes a martyr of sorts - choosing to spend her time in the kitchen and in the "cinders".

In the sense of - I'm not going to try and make my life (or my family's life) better, I'm going to sit here and feel sorry for myself.

Now, to some extent, Clara has lots of reason to feel sorry for herself, and she is in a tenuous position. And there is a time to mourn and really acknowledge one's feelings. I'm not trying to diminish that.

Where the change comes into account is when the step sister hero (Iris) talks Clara into going to the ball/party - which Clara initially doesn't want to do. She doesn't want to change, she doesn't want her situation to get any better - despite the fact the family is going broke. At least, in misery, in martyrdom, she knows what will happen. She has the illusion of control over the situation.

And she (Clara) has the ability to change every one's fate (including her own), by entering into a so-called good marriage. For whatever reason, after this conversation, Clara decides that she is willing to help herself - to leave that situation. To make things better - even though whatever she is going into may not be the ideal.

And in the end, it's clear that it's not "happily ever after", Clara has simply made the choice to step into adulthood, support those she loves and live how she can.

I just think it's interesting to think about (and study) how we hold ourselves back, how we make excuses about why we don't want to change or think of things differently. Why we don't want to examine new information or try out new ways of doing things/relating to others. Why we can't accept the bad things that have happened to us - the bad situations that we're in, and try to make them better.

Life isn't as simple as black or white - good or evil.

I appreciate art/fiction that goes into the gray - the space between black and white. I've found much of life is gray. There (usually) aren't good and bad choices, there are just choices. And everyone has to make them.

I *think* so

My daughter bit her tongue over the weekend, and we spent some time in the emergency room.

She's fine, she didn't need stitches. She's back to eating most of the same food she did before.

But what gave me pause, looking back on this incident, was when the doctor asked me if she had all her shots.

I replied "I think so, I think she has".

My husband confirmed, "She's had all her shots."

It's true, I was there when she had all her shots. I know vaccinations can be controversial, but we have been a traditional family (in that sense). We even get the flu shot. I don't carry the list around with me, but I'm pretty sure she's had all the shots she needs (we've gone over it with pre-school and everything).

I find it interesting that I am so non-committal in nature. Most of the time, when asked a direct question, this is how I will respond. Even when I know the answer to the best of my ability.

It comes from making lots of commitments without knowing what I was getting into, specifically religious commitments. Or that growing up, things were fluid - making a commitment would have real consequences (when I couldn't follow through with that commitment for whatever reason).

I try to be open to other points of view and new information , sometimes to a fault.

For example, I was asked to be a reference for a friend who was thinking of foster parenting/adoption. When asked (on the form) what kind of parent I thought they would be, I said "I think they will be a good parent". Because I don't/didn't really know what kind of parent they will be and it's hard for me to commit to such a serious statement. This was another time that my husband observed - you might want to say you know they will be good parents. Saying "think" might give the wrong impression. (He had/has a point). Despite the fact that from my view, they've always been good parents.

My husband is much better able to make definitive statements about things. It's just his personality.

I'm not sure what it is about me or my personality that makes it difficult to make definitive statements.

But it's something I will try to be more aware of, and to work on.