Tag: sexism

Why Gender?

crimson

In my last post, I suggested that sex follows gender. That one’s gender determines presentation and choices about one’s body. I firmly believe this, based on all the observations I have made over the years. But there is still one question that continues to plague me. Why?

I believe anyone I ask will agree that gender (or sex) is a thing. There are men and there are women in our world. And I think most will also agree that an individual’s gender (and sex) are a significant feature of the individual. However, what is this significance? What driving force or work does gender do? If I say I am a man, what does that mean?

As I have described in great detail in many of my previous posts, when I say I am a man, it seems to come preloaded with a great deal of assumptions regarding my preferences and interests. For example, a man likes beer. So when I tell someone I am a man, among the many things I am saying, I am saying I like beer. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words; I think gender is like a thousand adjectives, directing and describing the individual. The problem then, as might quickly become obvious, is that there are only two sets of descriptions out there to chose from.

If I am a man, then I like beer. And I also dislike cocktails. I like trucks, and I do not like small cars. I like blue, and I do not like pink. At least, this is what being a man suggests. What if I am a man because I like beer, and yet I do not like the colour blue? What if I meet the requirements of some of the adjectives and not others?

The first thing I might do is suggest I am not a man, and in the presence of our societal false dilemma I must therefore be a woman. Women don’t like blue and instead like pink. Perhaps that might work for me. But I still like beer. Women do not like beer, according to the prototype. I appear to be frustrated again. I am unable to satisfy the requirements of either of the genders properly.

It seems that the use of gender in categorizing and describing a person fails. Were I to sit down and write out all the things that I like and dislike, I find that more than half the things written do not conform to either prototype. Perhaps I do not like blue, as a man ought, nor pink, as a woman ought. In fact, I do not like alcohol at all, so I prefer neither beer nor cocktails. Where does this place me now?

No, the driving force behind gender cannot be to allow for easier stereotyping of individuals. Inevitably no individual entirely conforms to either description. If I do try to use the model, I end up upsetting the individual because I made an assumption about them that was incorrect. I have encountered this in the course of my life, from both sides. In my youth I thought I understood some people because of some category they allegedly belonged to; I followed those assumptions and ended up in conflicts, sometimes physical in nature. In more recent times, I find it is I who is frustrated by the assumption of others. I very much appear to be a man, and present very well as such. But I still do not like beer at all. I do not like sports, and do not know the names of players, teams, or statistics. When someone approaches me, making their assumption and trying to initiate amenable interactions, I find myself very uncomfortable.

In my younger years, when people made assumptions about me, I got angry. And I, in my naivety, expressed that anger outwardly and violently. For me, I found myself frustrated at not being seen by anyone. Or, perhaps more accurately, to be categorized incorrectly. However, in the defense of those categorizing, their options are few. If there are only two options to pick from, and if I do not fit into either category cleanly, they are in a situation they cannot possibly win. They too are frustrated, though they may not always realize this at first.

As I got older, I found the better solution was to allow acquaintances to think what they think. After all, in most cases, they are coming from a place of positivity and kindness. In many cases, they simply want to be friends, and this is simply the best way they know how. For example, I worked in IT on a machine shop floor for a number of years. Being an IT guy surrounded by machinists, I was often accused of being a geek and a nerd. Of liking Star Trek, for example. While I do not mind that bit of science fiction, it is far from my favorite. I am no Trekkie. Unfortunately for me, however, those machinists all took me for one and used this assumed detail to flavour their interactions with me. The part that frustrated me most in these interactions was that it was clear they had no idea what they were talking about either. They would try to talk to me about Star Trek, but they knew less about it than I did. This led to some very challenging interactions.

In the end, I had to frequently tell myself that it was not malicious. Those machinists were not trying to insult me or make me uncomfortable. Well, perhaps some of them might have been. But there were certainly many of them who really simply wanted to be friends. Over several years, I slowly figured out which was which. And once an individual made the leap from acquaintance to friend, I felt comfortable enough to correct them regarding my interests. It was a very challenging lesson for me to learn. And it also showed me that the number of actually malicious people in our world is not nearly as great as I had originally thought.

All of this is good and interesting, but none of it really answers the original question I posed. Why? If gender causes so much trouble, as do so many other prejudicial categories, then why is it so important? What does it do? What does it tell us that is actually helpful and accurate? In nearly half a century, my answer continues to be, gender tells us nothing.

To be most accurate, I believe that gender provides no useful information about a person whatsoever. I had thought, for a time, that perhaps gender might provide insight into the aspirations and goals of an individual. That perhaps it was suggesting that the individual wanted to be more masculine or feminine. But then I found so many people out there, like me, who use it as a defense mechanism and to hide in plain sight. That the prototype is the furthest thing from my desires, but I also feel like the world will condemn me if they only knew the real me.

To be clear, I have tried exposing my true nature to people over time. Presenting myself as authentically as I possibly could to close friends. The results were disastrous. It might be argued that perhaps those people were not really my friends, otherwise they would have accepted me as I was. There may be some truth to this, as they are definitely no longer my friends. However, it has also strengthened my resolve at hiding. The mask that I wear today is the best it has ever been. I can hide extremely well now.

There is one last area I ought to address with regard to what gender might offer. When I ask this question to those around me, it is inevitably the first reaction they always seem to have. “Gender,” they say, “tells us who can bear the children.” In other words, it is suggested that gender tells us who has a uterus, and who does not. Putting aside trans people for a moment, as they certainly undermine this argument immediately, I will focus on cis individuals and show that even then it is mistaken.

If we accept that gender tells us who can bear the children, then we are saying women can bear children and men cannot. If this is the case, then little girls are not women until puberty. This seems mostly unproblematic, except that little girls are then men until they are women. Perhaps we should grant that those who have not reached puberty are, in some sense, genderless then. Except that isn’t what is being presented. Boys and girls are clearly gendered. Perhaps we might call them gendered-in-training?

To simplify some more, I will take those who have not reached puberty out of the discussion as well. Thus, at puberty, there are women who are capable of bearing children, and men who are not. This seems to work, with a few exceptions of infertile women on account of genetic defect or other calamity. But we do not suggest that a woman who is infertile is suddenly a man. Alright, I will remove those who have those challenges from the discussion for the moment, focusing on those who ought to be able to bear children if their situation did not somehow preclude it.

Then I have to reflect on those who are particularly older. Women are unable to bear children beyond a certain age. The precise age is always debated, based on a plethora of particulars, but it is at least agreed upon that women cannot bear children indefinitely. (Unlike men who seem to be able to impregnate women throughout their lives.) The basic question remains, then, do women who have crossed this threshold and can no longer bear children suddenly become men? Of course they don’t. The idea is as insane as most of my discussion. Women remain women throughout their lives, keeping in mind all the assumptions I have added thus far.

Thus, the original question remains. Gender still is not providing any useful or reliable information regarding an individual. If it is saying anything about the individual, I might suggest it is saying what society is saying about the individual. That is, it is an impression placed upon them, instead of a reflection of them.

In the same way that I suggested that gender provides a template to an individual regarding how to try and present themselves, gender is placed upon them from the outside, from society and from others. It is the community that suggests something about the individual in this case. The community is directing and guiding and oppressing the individual, forcing them to abandon whatever choices they may themselves try to make, overwhelming them with directives to follow.

If the community agrees that an individual is a woman, then that individual is now strongly encouraged regarding their behaviors. They now are being provided guidance regarding the manner in which they ought to attire themselves, and the way they ought to move. In fact, the community is even making suggestions regarding the goals and aspirations for that individual. After all, women’s duty is to bear children.

Similarly with myself. I have been told all my life I am a man. As such, I am supposed to like beer. I am supposed to like sports. I am supposed to walk in two tracks. But it goes much further than all that. I am supposed to spread my seed. I am supposed to take a wife. I am supposed to earn lots of money. I am supposed to “be a man” and “man up” and fulfill my obligations to society. I am supposed to be productive, in a particular way. Whenever I do not conform in these expectations, I am vehemently notified.

I am not here to suggest I am oppressed in a greater fashion than women clearly are. Only that I know my own experiences, and that I do not know the experiences of women. Except what certain women choose to share with me, of course. And from all that I have learned, it seems to me that perhaps gender does provide one important job in our world: it tells us who are the slaves.

Apologies and Regrets

crimson

Today’s post is a bit different. It will still have a strong philosophical aspect to it, however, it will also be much more personal at the same time. Today I want to discuss how to apologize to someone for deeds of the past.

In some cases, apologizing to someone for harm done is an easy choice. If the person who has been harmed continues to experience the effects of the harm, then it is fundamentally critical that the person who initiated the harm should apologize and do what they can to alleviate the ongoing effects of the harm. I do not believe there would be many people out there who would argue against this. Put more simply, if you harm another person, you should apologize to that person for doing them harm, and then you should do what you can to undo the effects of the harm.

But what if the effects are long passed? Or perhaps the effects of the harm have become integrated deeply into the person’s psyche? It may have become an integral part of their current personality, and the manner in which they coped with the harm may have become simply another aspect of them now. In some cases, this could include when a person has suppressed the effects in order to cope. Should you apologize in this case?

The concern I am raising is the situation whereby apologizing to someone for harm from the past may dredge up old buried memories and pain. If my intention is to sincerely apologize for past harm, I ought not generate new current harm in the process. In some cases, the past is the past, and it may be prudent to let the past remain the past.

In order to clarify what my concern is and how this may play out, consider a hydroelectric dam. While many seem to believe that a dam is an extremely environmentally friendly form of generating electricity, I would like to point out simply how wrong those people are. Take a body of water, such as a flowing river or stream. That environment exists in its form, and all the life that exists around it is accustomed to the body of water as it is: as a flowing river or stream. Those creatures who are “fit,” in Darwin’s idea of fitness, under those circumstances, with a flowing river or stream, will flourish, while those who are not “fit” will not flourish. The environment exists as it does, with a flowing river or stream.

Now add the hydroelectric dam to the equation. The flowing water becomes something else. The river becomes a lake. The water is no longer moving but has become static. Those creatures who flourished in the previous environment may not be as “fit” in the new environment. Furthermore, other creatures who did not flourish in the previous environment may be more “fit” and start to flourish. The environment changes. Some creatures die out and go extinct, while other creatures become the new dominant species in the area. Irreparable damage has taken place. Irreparable harm.

It may be argued that one can simply remove the hydroelectric dam and allow the previous environment to reassert itself, however, if a particular species really has gone extinct, then there will be no way for that species to return. Furthermore, now that the new environment has been created, is it really justified or appropriate to take a new thriving species and kill it in the name of the past?

I do not have an answer to the hydroelectric dam dilemma. Once an environment has been changed, it has been changed. There is no “going back.” And it might even be argued that “going back” is undesirable anyway. This I compare to harm done between people.

When I was young, I was bullied a lot. When I was young, I was considered a nerd and a geek. When I was young, being a nerd or geeky was the furthest thing from popular. Times have changed. My childhood was quite challenging for me. But I do not regret my own childhood. The bullying I experienced gave me the skills and tools needed to deal with bullying in my adult life. Admittedly, I still learn more skills and tools even today to deal with such situations, but the bulk of my abilities come from my youth. I know how to stand my ground, and I know how to not be taken in by the bully. I can “turn the other cheek” as some might call it. I can diffuse the bully.

But. Sometimes I also was the bully. There have been times in my life where I abused my power over others as well. I have inflicted harm upon others. The worst part was that I had no idea I was doing it at the time in most cases. And even when I did realize I was doing harm, the methods I used to try and undo the effects often created even more harm than the original harm. It is for all my actions that I wish to apologize.

It may be true that I am as much a victim of the systemic structures of society (such as patriarchy and consumerism) as anybody else. But I don’t feel like that is a good excuse. In the past, I thought I was a “nice guy,” much like I referred to in my last post. I thought I was doing what I ought to do with regard to women. I know now how wrong I was. I regret my behavior and I want to apologize for it.

However, I cannot apologize. At least not in the normal sense. To seek out those I harmed and try to apologize to them amounts to reintroducing the harm, or introducing new harm. Seeking those people out is itself a harm. Like the hydroelectric dam, those individuals I am thinking about have become who and what they are today and it is certainly not my place to interfere in their lives. I ought not approach them at all.

I’ve thought a lot about all of this, for many, many years. I understand that a large part of my desire to apologize is for my own relief from pain. To apologize can also be a selfish act. For me, this may be part of the story as well. So I believe I have come up with a sort of way to deal with this situation. If I cannot approach those people, perhaps I can make known my apology, and leave it in a place where they can find it. And then, if they go looking for it, they can find it and know that I regret my actions. In that way, they have control of the situation and can decide for themselves if they wish to seek me out. They can have the power, instead of me.

This solution is far from perfect. Posting a mostly anonymous blog in the void of the information superhighway is certainly not going to make things easy for them. However, I do know that those people are connected to others that I know, and so they will be able to find me if they desire to do so. It is possible for them to find this blog and my messages. And so, this is what I will do now.

To M, who said I was a monster, and who suggested she only dated me to protect other women in the world from me, I apologize. I know our relationship was so strange and innocent at the time we had it. I clearly did not know what I was doing, nor the harm I was causing you. I feel like you may have been in the same situation, though I realize I do not know your mind in these matters. I thank you for enduring me, as the lessons you taught me have endured all this time as well. However, I am sorry for being the monster. And I am sorry for causing you harm.

To L, who suggested I did not want to date her, but that I was only interested in what she could do for me. You were right, of course. Your assessment of me was accurate, as your maturity likely showed you. I often think about your past history, the history you refused to share with me, and I find the possibilities simply make me regret even more how I treated you. I was clearly too young and immature to understand the nature of our relationship. It was you who suggested I go out and explore myself in the world, and I have. But I am still sorry for how I treated you. I am sorry for causing you harm.

To M, who revealed to me that the drugs were taking something from me. I was in a bad place when you met me, and the drugs were simply an escape from a reality I needed to feel. I was supposed to be the mature one, but I did not handle my position as I ought to have. I am sorry for causing you harm.

And to all the others who I have not mentioned, I am sorry as well. Part of my writing this blog has been to come to terms with the reality of this world, and part of that coming to terms is the realization of precisely how bad people are toward each other. The prejudice and the sexism is so thick, it almost seems like it exists as a thing in itself. But I know that it does not. Or, to be more accurate, it doesn’t have to be. As my philosophy instructors would often phrase it, “it could be otherwise.”

There is absolutely no good reason that men ought to treat women as they do. Nor is there any good reason for treating anyone else as anything less than human. Or, perhaps to be more accurate, to treat any other living being as anything less than a living being, for even humans ought not be privileged. My pet rabbit ought not be my pet, and be allowed to simply be himself, as a rabbit.

I believe in Simone de Beauvoir and her suggestion that revolution is the only real answer. That we cannot change the system from within the system. Only from outside can we even hope to gain a proper understanding of the state of affairs we have created for ourselves. And only from the outside could we even hope to find an appropriate course of action to follow to make the world a better place.

I apologize to everyone for my part in being a man in patriarchy. I apologize for my sexism, my racism, and all my other -isms. I’d like to tell you all that I am no longer those things, but the truth is I am still. I don’t think I can escape it, just as I believe that everyone else is just as sexist and racist as I am. The difference is not whether we are an -ism, it is what we choose to do with that knowledge. To check myself and not allow my prejudices to unduly affect my decision making and other choices. I may be sexist, but I don’t have to allow that sexism to inform my decisions.

It is like the issue of staying at home during a pandemic. Just because the government doesn’t tell me I must stay at home full time doesn’t mean I ought to look for every little loophole in order to leave my house. As my father suggested about laws, it is more important to recognize the spirit of the law instead of the word of the law. To understand the intention behind. To understand that I ought to do my best to stay at home, as that will help others stay safe during this pandemic. To understand that thinking of others helps me be better toward everyone else. And to recognize that others are not really others at all, but simply another part of me.

The Arrogant Eye

crimson

Before I begin, I wish to acknowledge that the term I have used as my title today is not my own creation. I’ve borrowed it from Marilyn Frye, specifically from the book “The Politics of Realty, Essays in Feminist Theory.” My discussion today is heavily influenced by Frye’s ideas and words, as well as the ideas of Simone de Beauvoir and others. Of women.

I recently watched the 2020 film “Promising Young Woman.” This is an amazing and impressive work whose underlying critical thoughts are likely missed by most of its viewers, especially the male viewers. I would strongly urge you to watch this film, if you have not already done so. Do not read any synopsis of the film ahead of time; the synopsis I found and read actually took away from the charm of the story (the synopsis had spoilers in it). Instead, I offer this description of the film:

A troubled young woman goes around luring men to take her home under the guise of being blackout drunk. In truth, she is stone cold sober every time, and uses the opportunity to confront the men who are simply trying to take advantage of her for their own pleasure. As the story unfolds, it becomes clear that she may not be as troubled as is initially assumed.

I was not raised a woman or a girl. I do not have the experience nor conditioning that accompany such an upbringing. Instead, I was raised a man. Much of my conditioning and experience was focused on presenting the world to me in such a way that “the world is my oyster.” I was raised to oppress and control. I was raised to seek ownership and possession of all that is in my purview. I always had troubles with these ideas, seeing the inconsistencies and flaws in such a world-view. Unfortunately for me, being aware has not always been enough to stop be from doing the things I ought not do. But I try to this day to be more than I was raised to be.

Today, I must speak from my perspective on this topic, because that is the perspective I have. I cannot speak for women, as I am not a woman. I did not have those experiences. I do not fully understand where my insight came from, but it is here nonetheless. I hope I can do justice to and properly convey the idea I have planned to convey.

In my last year at university, I had an ongoing discussion with a friend of a friend of mine. A young man who considered himself “woke.” A young man who believed he treated women well. A “nice guy,” to borrow a term used in the film mentioned above. We discussed a number of topics, but one of them recurred frequently. The idea of approaching a woman in order to pursue a relationship with her. He would come to me suggesting the best and most appropriate manner in approaching a desirable woman; a manner that he considered to be properly acknowledging the woman’s autonomy and status as a free conscious being. Every time, I had to tell him that I believed he was mistaken. His approaching a desirable woman (for any reason really) is already flawed before he begins. This is what I will explain, and I hope to make it clear why I am correct.

I will first break down the process that leads him to approach the woman. His method of approach matters little, as you will see. First, he sees the woman. Then he decides she is attractive. In finding her attractive, he desires to pursue a relationship with her, which leads to the question of how best to approach her in order to realize this relationship. Presented more susinctly:

[1] Man sees woman (this is discovery: he comes to understand that the woman exists)

[2] Man judges woman (from [1] and using his world-view, he assesses the qualities of the woman)

[3] Man finds woman attractive (from [2], man determines that woman’s qualities are desirable)

[4] Man desires to possess woman (from [3], man wishes to exercise his desire by possessing the desirable thing)

[5] Man tries to determine best course of action to achieve [4]

Of course it is always possible that after [2] the man determines that the qualities of the woman are not desirable, and then [3], [4], and [5] do not come about, but this simply exacerbates the situation and emphasizes my point further. I will return to this later. For now, I will address the situation where the man does find the woman attractive.

Step [1] above is the ONLY step that is not wrought with sexism or other negative ideas. It is basic discovery in the world. To be clear, the sort of thing I have in mind here is the most basic, primitive form of seeing. Before this step, the man is not aware that the woman exists at all in any way. After this step, he is aware of her existence, simply at the most basic level. Enough so for him to proceed to step [2]. One cannot begin to judge a thing until one is aware that there is a thing to be judged. Basic awareness of existence.

Step [2] begins the first, and in my opinion most insidious, problem with the situation. We all judge. It is part of our nature as free conscious beings to do so. We assess our world, deciding the value of everything around us. It is possible that I might borrow a valuation offered to me by others, such as the systems in place in society, but it is still me who applies and exercises that valuation. In the case of the woman, the man assess her qualities (whatever qualities he is able to glean by seeing her). If her qualities measure up to the valuation he has established (a.k.a if he thinks she is beautiful based on his pre-established valuation of beauty standards, which are often given to him through his upbringing in a patriarchal society), then he finds her attractive. This is the first problem, and one could stop here if one wanted to.

Step [3] follows from step [2]. If the woman’s qualities are such that she is valuable, she is then desired. He desires her, for she has value to him. It isn’t any more complicated than this. He sees her as a commodity with value. He has objectified her. One might argue the objectification occurred at step [2], and I would not really argue against that. However, I would point out that when I judge, I do so to everything in my world, indiscriminately. I cannot see my world without judging ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING I see. On some level, I have decided the value in everything around me, and a woman is no different than a stone in this regard. Even my own body is subject to this judgement. This is what it means to be embodied, as Beauvoir might agree with me; simply having a body subjects me to judgement and assessment. To have a body is to, even if just in part, be objectified. The trick is to not allow this objectification to overwhelm the other possible interactions I might have with a particular body, such as an acknowledgement that the body is more than a mere body, and may also include a free conscious being with its own desires and projects.

Therefore, it is at step [3] that the majority of problems occur. Sexism rears its ugly head and establishes the nature of the relationship between the man and the woman even before the woman knows what is happening. Specifically, the man decides the woman’s value is merely in her embodiment. The man has reduced the woman to a mere object, without regard to any other aspect she may possess, including her own desires. Ironically, if he decides she is unattractive, the same is still true, as he has reduced her to a valuation which has made her undesirable as well. He has still disregarded any other possible aspect to her as a free conscious being when he dismisses her.

This is why we do not even need to proceed to step [4] or beyond. Step [4] is simply the man deciding to pursue the woman in order to possess her as a valuable object, or to dismiss her as an object with little or no value. In other words, If the man decides he wishes to pursue this woman at this point, he does so simply in virtue of her objectivity. Any attempt he makes to approach this woman is tainted by a stain of desired oppression. And, as I was reminded by my partner, her desire to be or not be approached is also being dismissed.

Put another way, his reason to approach the woman is flawed at the outset. There is no determining the best way to approach the woman because the simple desire to approach the woman is the problem. It is all about the “why.” Why does he want to approach the woman? If he does so because he is attracted to her, then he is already at fault of expressing sexism. If he wants to pursue a relationship with her, then he is objectifying her. He has chosen a course of action rooted in his valuation of her. One might even argue that what he desires is not the woman at all, but his perception of value that he believes the woman possesses. That is, what he desires is the abstract qualities he believes have value, and he has subconsciously assigned to the woman. He desires the idea of the woman. Either way, he has disregarded her as a free conscious being, having her own desires and projects.

This is, as I see it, one of the major issues women face in our world. The thing is, this analysis can be just as easily applied to racism and other forms of prejudism. It’s in the name itself. To judge before one gets to know the other parts or aspects of the entity in question. To base one’s opinions, and especially valuation, upon simple visual qualities. To judge a book by its cover, as the saying goes. To establish that the value of a person is somehow based on what they look like, or other features of their appearance. And to dismiss even the possibility that they may possess other features that one cannot see. Or, if you prefer, to dismiss the significance of those other features, giving inappropriate weight to those features that are seen through the arrogant eye.

Silence

crimson

It is not like me to have nothing to say. Talk to anyone who knows me; I am notorious for talking at length about almost anything. The fact that it has been nearly three weeks since my last post seems strange, at least to me.

This blog is for me. It is for me to write what is on my mind, when I wish to write. Perhaps I simply do not wish to write? I don’t think that is the issue. Honestly, I think it is a question of priorities. Many of my priorities have changed over the past few months, even the past few years. Those things I considered particularly important have now become much less so. Last year, I graduated secondary school, earning my first degree. This blog was, for me, a way to continue practicing and exercising my logic and reason. A way to continue writing. However, since graduating, I have slowly been sliding back into other areas of interest.

From a very young age, computers have been an integral part of my existence. I started programming at about five years old on a Texas Instruments TI99/4A. I learned to program in BASIC back then, a very slow and clunky language intended to make programming easy for people like me to learn. BASIC is very basic.

Among the reasons I think programming appealed to me was the fact that I could control something. In my life, I have observed that there is very little I have actual control over. My parents were a bit overbearing, and definitely overprotective. I had very few opportunities to express a freedom, assuming such a thing even exists. I am not surprised that I doubt the existence of free will when I consider my upbringing. I find it strange when my parents disagree with me on the topic of freedom; I guess they were on the other side of that equation.

I find myself frequently thinking about oppression and slavery. About situations where people are in some way forced to make certain sorts of decisions and choices. When I think about this long enough, I realize that everyone is a slave to determinism. That is, all the choices I make are influenced (heavily) by all the things that have come before. The insidious chain of cause and effect plays its part on all the choices I make, as much as I try to avoid it. Like an adversity to touch hot stoves, my upbringing led me directly to the point I am today. Not only was this situation I find myself in inevitable, but I really could not have done otherwise.

This is the point of contention I expect most people to dispute. This is the point my own mother argued against vehemently. As she suggested, if fate ruled then I ought to walk into the street in front of a moving bus; her reasoning was that if fate truly ruled, I’d somehow not be hit. Unfortunately, it is my belief that my mother did not truly understand what I was saying. Of course I would get hit by a moving bus were I to jump in front of one. It is just silly to suggest otherwise. After all, cause and effect is just as valid in that situation as any other.

However, I try to understand her point of view in this. I think she was trying to suggest that I don’t have to jump in front of a bus. After all, I understand the consequences of such actions, and therefore I can choose to do otherwise. That is what I think she was trying to suggest. Unfortunately, this simply reaffirms my side of the argument: I would never step in front of a moving bus because I KNOW that I would be hit by it. It is really no different than the hot stove at all, and my knowledge of how cause and effect works has already made my decision before I am aware of it. Like when the Oracle tells Neo that he has already made his choice, he only now must understand why he has made the choice. “Know thy self.”

This is why I am so passionate regarding recognition of the structures of society. This is why I fear patriarchy and consumerism. I KNOW that their influence has a hold on me, and on all those around me. I KNOW that when I feel the urge to control another person, especially a woman, it is patriarchy that has deemed that I do so. I KNOW that when I feel the motivation to make lots of money and buy lots of things, consumerism is behind it. I am smart enough to understand that control over other people is pointless, as is the accumulation of stuff.

It is at this point that I always remember what my professors told me during my education: if you don’t agree with the way something is, you need to be able to provide an alternative if you plan to argue it coherently. I can suggest that patriarchy and consumerism are the worst inventions that have ever been, but unless I can suggest an alternative system to exist under, my point is mute. What would life be without patriarchy or consumerism?

I hurt people, unintentionally, when I work my way down this rabbit hole. When I tell my wife that it is not her appearance that impresses me, but her empathy, she seems both happy and sad at my statements. I think she is happy because I see her, in the way Marilyn Frye suggests women should be seen. She is not a stage hand, she is the star of my show. However, I also think she wishes I looked at her as being the most attractive woman in the world, in the way that she exemplifies the eternal woman of patriarchy. She seems often depressed at her inability to attain the perfect hourglass shape and incomprehensible weight, the statistics fed to her through all the mass media we are exposed to. So when I indirectly suggest her appearance is not important to me, I think she might interpret it to mean that she is unattractive. Like how people, when trying to be polite about an ugly person, they suggest that the person’s personality is what is important. It is a veiled insult. I swear that is not what I intend at all, but we are all part of that same system, and so those sorts of interpretations are common.

What is the alternative? I cannot say. I don’t know. When I consider myself, all these systems and structures stripped away, it seems to me I would be nothing. That is, every aspect of my being is infused with these structures. One way or another, I am a victim of my conditioning. I am a slave. I see no escape from it. Only one thing ever remains in my deep thought: my raw consciousness.

To be clear, it is not the consciousness most people would think about. When René Descartes strips away everything he can doubt in his meditations, he suggests the only thing that remains is his existence: “I think, I am.” There is debate as to whether this actually works, but I will give him this. What comes next as he travels back to the world is where I find myself disputing. Because he follows a path brought about through his conditioning, conditioning brought about through his lived experience. He would not consider such things if he had not first lived and experienced the world, in some fashion. The very idea of God comes from lived experience.

For me, what I mean by raw consciousness is that there is this thing I have, or I am, that I cannot really describe or explain. The other term I often use is my “first person,” a term to denote that it is my perspective on the world. I recognize that this raw consciousness is fed information through the incredibly flawed interfaces that have been provided: my eyes, my ears, etc. I know that even those interfaces could have been hijacked, through something akin to simulation theory. In fact, unlike Descartes, I don’t even agree that my exercising a thought is sufficient to suggest I exist, as a particularly good simulation might be doing the work of thinking for me.

The best I can sort of suggest is that I am like a passive observer, receiving all this information from somewhere. And due to the causal nature of everything, even my choices and decisions could have been (likely are) also hijacked. I feel like the “job” of my formal consciousness (the consciousness that most people think of) is to tell stories. That is, stuff happens and I make choices (which are predetermined by causality), and my conscious mind finds a way to justify and explain what happened and why I chose as I did. My mind tells a story to explain the occurrences in the world, and the occurrences in my mind as well. That I am simply a story telling machine.

The story goes something like this: I am a raw consciousness, a passive observer of experience. I, in some fashion, inhabit this body and this mind, both which provide for me experiences to observe. But this body and this mind both are subject to a deterministic universe, where causal relationships have been playing out for some time. I have no control of this mind nor this body, I am simply a passive observer. It is sort of like watching a very long film.

It is even possible that what I think is my body, and what I think is the world, both do not exist as I think they do at all. It is possible that the experience information I receive is fabricated by some massive system, as in simulation theory. However, if this is true, it matters little. A fabricated reality is still a reality. The rules and laws of one universe don’t need to resemble the rules and laws of another, so long as there is at least some consistency. To be honest, even the question of consistency is irrelevant.

The purpose of my mind is to tell a story. Using the faculties of reason and memory, my mind tells a story about how things have come about and why, when it is able to consider a why. When a why is unavailable, magic often suffices. This is definitely why I can do something without good reasons; it simply means my mind is failing me at telling a good story, or perhaps even a bad one. If the story is unconvincing to me, then I am a hypocrite and a liar. If it is, I am honorable and trustworthy. As a person, I am really only as good as the stories I can tell.

In the end, I am always left with one thing that could possibly be me: this raw consciousness, this first person passive observer. Strip away patriarchy and consumerism, and the countless other systems and structures that exist, and I am nothing more than a remote feeling. A slave with absolutely no control over anything at all.

“My” Wife

crimson

There are always so many things to talk about. Some topics I consider to be critically important and significant, and yet somehow I forget to talk about them. This will be one of those topics.

In our heteronormative world, when I talk to people about my partner in life, I refer to her as “my wife.” Those two words come preloaded with a plethora of meanings and ideas, most of which I do not intend. Today, I will talk about the first word, and why it is so problematic, especially for me.

The word “my” is an English word that is frequently used to elicit an understanding of ownership, possession, and even dominance. For something (or someone) to be “mine,” I am expected to have some sort of control over it. Unfortunately for me, this is the furthest thing from my intent. This fact is an issue with me that I struggle with, as I instinctively drop the word “my” frequently for many purposes. I will share with you why I have so much trouble with this word.

Let us first consider possession. To possess something means that I have some sort of control over that something. For example, at this moment, I possess this keyboard, in that I control it’s position in space and time. I grasp the keyboard and can move it around. And at this moment, I have placed it upon my lap in order to press on the keys, which is how I am typing this post. I possess this keyboard. It is my keyboard in this sense.

Possession, it seems to me, is a state, like being happy or angry. The keyboard is in the state of being possessed by me. This suggests that it can very easily cease to be possessed as well. If I place it on the table in front of me, and I walk away, I no longer possess the keyboard. The keyboard is no longer in my control. I can return, grasp the keyboard, and again I will possess it. But while I leave it unattended on the table, I do no possess it. It could certainly be argued that I still possess the keyboard, as it would be very difficult for others to come to possess it while it remains inside “my” home. Thus, in some sense, I still have some control over the keyboard, and so perhaps I still possess it even when it is unattended.

However, when the keyboard is unattended on the table, the idea (I think) most have regarding the keyboard’s state is not possession, but something else that is related: ownership. I own the keyboard, even when it is unattended. In this way, they keyboard is “mine” once again. Ownership, unlike possession, is much more difficult to clarify. With possession, an object (or person) can easily be taken away from me, such that I will no longer possess it. Someone could come into the room presently and take the keyboard off my lap and hold it outside my reach. In that case, I no longer possess that keyboard. But I may still own the keyboard.

Ownership, it seems to me, is more of an agreement than a state of affairs. An agreement between myself and others. To say that I own the keyboard, it is not necessarily I who makes the claim, but others. If those around me agree that the keyboard belongs to me, then I own the keyboard. However, if those around me decide that the keyboard does not belong to me, they will not agree with me that I own the keyboard. In fact, if others decide that the keyboard does not belong to me, they are likely to decide to take the keyboard away from me entirely. I would no longer possess nor own the keyboard in that situation.

Then there is dominance. Dominance, as I see it, is the idea of enforcement. To dominate an object is to force upon that object my possession, and possibly my ownership, over it. If I grasp the keyboard tightly and try to prevent others from taking it away from me, I am expressing a dominance over the keyboard. Whether I am successful with my dominance or not will be revealed with time, whether I continue to possess the keyboard or not. Dominance can lead to or strengthen ownership and possession. I can take actions that ensure that the object in question will remain under my control, despite the attempts of others to remove the object from my possession. This is, in some sense, where the idea that “ownership is nine tenths of the law” comes from. If I practice dominance over an object, and others are unable (or unwilling) to contradict my dominance over the object, then its remaining in my possession is a sort of acknowledgement of ownership. That is, others are forced to agree (on some level) that the object belongs to me, as they are unable to remove it from my possession.

All this talk sounds pretty elementary when applied to objects, but the ideas become much more pronounced when applied to conscious entities, especially people. I have a pet rabbit. I am considered the owner of the rabbit, in that I have some sort of control over it. If the rabbit does something inappropriate, I am the one held responsible for his actions. It would make no sense to hold me responsible for the actions of the rabbit, unless I had some sort of control over the rabbit. However, in order for me to convince the rabbit to submit to my desires, I would need to express a dominance over the rabbit. My dominance may take on any number of forms, so long as the end result is that the rabbit does as I desire it to do.

This way of seeing the relationship applies just as well with people. I can own a person, so long as those around me agree that I am the owner of the person. Furthermore, I am going to have to express some sort of dominance over the person in order to convince them to submit to my desires. I have to have some control over them, in order to be considered the owner of them. This, if it is not obvious, is a description of slavery. While I would like to think that we have, in our modern times, abolished slavery, I know through observation that this is most certainly not the case.

I have a partner in this world. Another person whom I hold dear. Another person whose projects I value and attempt to assist in finding successful completion of. This other person is one of the people in this world that I consider to be a full conscious entity, full of freedom just as I also possess. While at times I know that I could dominate her and try to control her, I spend the better part of my time trying very hard not to control her in any way. I admit I have varying degrees of success with this, but I do try. Part of the challenges I encounter in my attempts come from those around me in society. You see, as part of our relationship, we decided to marry.

I would argue that even were we not to marry, those around us would still consider our relationship in the same way as I am about to describe. However, in that we are married, I suggest that it reinforces the perceived nature of our relationship. In a heteronormative relationship, where a man is with a woman, it is considered to be the case that the man (in some way) owns the woman. As ownership is decided upon not by the owner or the thing owned, but by those around the owner, it is decided by society that I own my wife, in some way. Try as I might, it is not entirely up to me whether I have control over her. I can choose not to express a dominance, I can choose not to force her to submit to my desires; however, as I support her freedom and her projects, I sometimes end up supporting her submission to me regardless. It is a very complicated scenario, having been developed and reinforced for centuries through various traditions that came about long before I was ever conceived. The term often given to this complicated system of traditions and rules is patriarchy.

This all brings us back to the term “my.” To call her “my” wife is to, in some way, acknowledge that I have some level of dominance over her. In fact, my use of “my” is probably an expression of dominance itself. As much as I would prefer to believe that I only call her “my” wife to distinguish her from the other women out there who are committed to other heteronormative relationships with men, the truth is that those words are still conveying an idea, whether I like it or not. In truth, my only recourse to correct the situation is to not ever refer to her as “my” anything, and simply call her by her name at all times.

On a more personal note

crimsonLeave a comment

I know that my posts are generally pretty reflective, but this time, I’m really going to speak from the heart. You may already notice this post is occurring at a very unusual time. I even missed my last “scheduled” post. With the pandemic raging, and especially with the looming presidential election in the United States of America (USA), frankly, I’m exhausted and a bit depressed.

It’s really hard staying at home so much. It isn’t even just that I’m staying at home either. Most people seem to be. There isn’t as much socializing. There isn’t as much getting out and doing stuff. I leave the house and avoid people, like the plague. That saying holds substantially more meaning presently. “Like the plague” is precisely what it is. We are treating the pandemic “like the plague,” being all paranoid and critical of nearness. I was never that fond of simple handshaking. Other people’s grimy hands “infecting” my own. I often would seek out a nearby washroom to wash my hands after hand shakes if I could. But now, I miss that simple act. I miss contact.

I am very privileged and lucky. I have a partner and she takes really good care of me. I try my hardest not to be a burden on her, but sometimes I think she wishes I would be more of a burden. I support her projects; I want her to truly express her freedom; I want her to be able to demonstrate full personhood. However, I think she believes I am doing all of this at my own expense. I try to tell her I am not, but she doesn’t really believe me.

I am an Earth sign. I don’t really hold much weight in astrological stuff, but in this case it really does fit. I am slow and patient. As I get older, I get even slower and even more patient even. During this pandemic, I’ve been looking for a job, and while it is always disappointing when my calls are not returned, I am still very patient for the opportunities that eventually do come. I am not unhappy presently. Perhaps a bit melancholy, and possibly a little depressed, but I’m not unhappy. I’ve been unhappy in the past; this is definitely not that.

My life, like so many other people’s lives, has been turned on its head. I am treading in unfamiliar territory. And this experience has been more enlightening than I’d ever have expected. I stay at home most days, cleaning the house and tidying up. I do dishes. I do laundry (a little, I’m not trusted with the delicates yet). I even cook a little too, though I worry my meals will not be as well received as hers are. I am very much domestic now. And I’m starting to realize the primary issue with women’s lot.

To be clear, I am not regarded as a woman. I never lived a woman’s or a girl’s life. I am unfamiliar with all those details and experiences. But I feel like my present experience is giving me a taste of it. The stereotypical duties of the housewife. Spend your time at home doing all those duties at home. There is plenty to do. It is always surprising to me how much work there is to do around the house. There is just so much. So much to do that I am barely able to do the things I want/need to do. That is, as a man, I have often thought that certain tasks and activities were important. And, of course, when I have completed those tasks, I felt like my work was done, and I had earned a break to watch television or play a video game. But I am realizing how wrong I was.

The work is never done. Tasks are endless. You can clean some dishes, but there are more five minutes later. Clean the clothes, and there are more clothes already in need of washing. Vacuum, and collect some of the dust and debris, but miss so much more. It doesn’t matter what I do, I can never do enough. I can never complete a task. All I can do is abate the inevitable. But it is still more than that. Because all these sorts of tasks take me away from other tasks I often think are more important, like applying for jobs, or socializing with friends, or writing blog posts. Are these things really more important? I wonder sometimes. I wonder more and more these days.

I think on all this, and I realize something. This is slavery. This is an inability to express freedom; an inability to pursue one’s projects fully. I am performing all these duties at the expense of those duties I may want to perform. My choice is getting lost. At first, it made me angry and upset. But I realize now that it is simply another revealing of a truth. When my wife takes care of me, performing all these functions and so much more, so that I can sit on the couch and write a blog post like this, she is accepting her own slavery. She is giving up her own freedom in order to allow me mine.

It reminds me of something Aristotle wrote, which at the moment I cannot find. I believe it was part of his discussion in his Politics. He suggested that for philosophers to be able to do philosophy, others had to do the other work that needed to be done. That one needed to be free from the duties of every day life, like cooking and cleaning, in order to be able to contemplate and think on things. I believe this was part of his conclusions related to natural slavery; that some people are simply born or destined to be slaves, perhaps by their very genetics (though Aristotle was clearly not thinking about genetics at the time, as genetics is a very recent field of study). When I first read this, I immediately connected it with patriarchy.

I’ve only had the most minute taste of what it is like. I know I am still a man, and so I will never truly experience the life of a woman. In fact, I have a wife and my wife will always insist on taking care of me and attending to my needs. In fact, if I don’t let her, she actually takes insult to my reluctance. I’ve experienced this same situation in other settings too, where a guy I worked with insisted he had to pay for our lunches because he was older than the rest of us. Like some weird tradition I was not familiar with, he felt a duty to take care of us younger workers by buying our lunches all the time. If we discretely paid the bill ourselves, he would get incredibly upset, like we had punched him in the face or called him a bad name. In all these cases, the people seem to feel a duty to take care of me in some way, and if I deny them in this duty, they get very upset. I’ve since learned to accept it when people want to take care of me, at least somewhat. I care for them, and I don’t want to insult them or make them feel bad. I always feel I don’t deserve their appreciation, but my feelings regarding the situation are not important.

With all this background, I return to my own current experiences, trying to take care of my wife the way she always takes care of me. I don’t feel angry or upset or even sad about doing all this work. I feel the workload is unaccomplishable, but necessary. I say to myself, “it doesn’t have to be perfect; it just needs to be better than it was.” And I’ve become more understanding of the importance of the various duties and tasks I have. I’ve reevaluated. I’ve re-valued those tasks. Those I had thought were important are no longer as important as I remember, while others have become more so. My priorities have changed.

I am not unhappy. Quite the contrary. Okay, perhaps this is saying too much. If being unhappy is to not be in a state of happiness, then perhaps I am not happy. But I am also not the opposite of happy either. I am not upset or angry or sad. Maybe a little depressed, because the seemingly hopeless tasks can never be completed. Like Sisyphus, always pushing the boulder up the slope, only to watch it roll back down, over and over again. This is the life before me. This is the life that, I think, so many experience. The life of slavery.

I think that one is only upset about being a slave when one thinks they ought to have more freedom. And perhaps we all ought to have more freedom than we have. If democracy is the highest, best form of politics, and if the Americans are right to value freedom as much as they do, then perhaps slavery needs to be abolished more completely than it has (supposedly) been. Those aristocratic individuals who use their power to manipulate the world of those around them, in order to leverage their own projects and express their own freedom, ought to instead use their power to support the projects of those around them. Instead of using their power to support their own desires, perhaps they ought to use their power to support the desires of others. Perhaps the model many of us are familiar with, where the manager has subordinates below them, should instead be the subordinates with the manager below. Perhaps who is accountable to whom should be flipped. Perhaps the president of the USA ought to be accountable to his people, rather than his people being accountable to him.

The Challenge of Being Free

crimson2 Comments

As I suggested with the first blog, I had a plan regarding how I would proceed when I created this website. I wanted to talk more about time, what I think it is, and what the repercussions such a view of time would have. Perhaps I will get to it eventually, but not any time soon. Like all the other things that happen in my life, there always seems to be forces at work pressuring me to do different things than I want to do. This blog is no exception.

A good friend of mine recently started his own blog. You can find it here. He has decided to share his experiences in his attempt at “financial freedom.” So far, it sounds like he is doing quite well. But I would suggest he may still be in the “honeymoon phase” of his project. The real test of success, as I’ve observed, is the commitment to continuing in one’s project for the long term, especially when faced with distractions and outside pressures that interfere with said project. I have high hopes that he will succeed, but only time will tell. I just have to wait and see.

His project is well timed for my current discussion on freedom, and with regard to Black Lives Matter. In both cases, much of the discussion revolves around breaking out of a chain of predetermined events. In the case of Black Lives Matter, the issue is that there is a traditional world view that puts certain humans at a disadvantage with respect to other humans, in this case in particular, that black people are at a social and economic disadvantage with respect to white people. The social structures that support this fabricated dichotomy are complex, and changing them will certainly be challenging. To change them means breaking out of a chain of predetermined events. To change them means breaking the social structures, and possibly completely destroying them.

As for freedom, if freedom exists, its expression is literally the breaking out of the causal sequence of events. It sounds simple, but really is not. What I might call true freedom, the sort of freedom I’ve been trying to describe in the past few posts, requires making choices that are not determined by previous events or conditions. The very thought of such a freedom is challenging at best.

When my friend wants financial freedom, he is talking about this sort of freedom, though focused specifically in the area of his finances. He wants to no longer belong to the causal chain of events that has been preconstructed by the structures that exist around him. In this part of the world, consumerism and capitalism (at least in some form) run rampant. These structures, and many others, influence the decisions made by those individuals who exist within those societies. One simple and very insidious example of such a pressure is in the form of always carrying debt. In this culture, it is not only considered acceptable, it is considered necessary to always be in debt. Consider how one needs to behave to improve their credit rating. As I was instructed in my youth, one needs to have a credit card, use said credit card (thus entering into debt), and then immediately paying of that debt. In other words, those with the best credit ratings are those who constantly enter into debt, but immediately leave it as well, frequently, likely demonstrating that they are capable of some sort of self control, and that they can be relied upon to pay back what they owe when it is demanded of them.

A part of my friend’s attempt at financial freedom involves removal of all his debt. The very act of not being in debt contradicts the pressures society has placed upon him, but that is also why it is considered a freedom. To not be in debt is to contradict the traditional role of the individual in his society. To be debt free is to be financially free.

It is here I would like to introduce another example of freedom that I think is even more insidious, and yet even more telling. I drink water. That may sound particularly uninteresting, but I assure you it is not. I prefer the consumption of water over all other beverages. I prefer not to consume alcohol, soda, coffee, tea, milk, juice, or any other beverage you can imagine. It is true that I do engage in the consumption of non-water beverages occasionally, and that is part of why this discussion is so interesting to me. However, if given the choice, I would only ever consume water as a beverage for the rest of my life.

Just last year, in January of 2019, a new simplified Canada Food Guide was released. In it, it suggests I “make water [my] drink of choice.” I was quite happy in discovering this change, but others have not been so impressed. For example, politician Andrew Scheer expressed concerns regarding the new food guide’s removal of milk as a beverage of choice. This simple question of what people ought to drink has sparked a great deal of controversy in many circles.

Regardless of the scientific or health benefits associated (or possibly not associated) with the consumption of water, what I find most interesting is how the structures of society pressure me to not drink water. Commercialism would have me believe that there are a plethora of superior options to water that I ought to consider when the time comes to quench my thirst. If I am exercising, I ought to drink a sports drink. If I am at a pub, I ought to drink alcohol. If I am sitting at home watching television, I ought to drink a soda. Even at breakfast, as Scheer would likely suggest, I ought to drink milk.

It does not seem to matter at all what my preference is. When I hang out with friends in a restaurant, if I ask the server for water, both the server and my friends give me looks and make me feel guilty for my choice. After all, the server is working hard, and so I should choose a beverage that presents a cost that will support the effort they are putting into getting me something to drink. Furthermore, being in a restaurant represents a luxury from the monotony of being at home, so I ought to get myself something to drink that is more than I might otherwise do if I were at home. I am scolded for my choice, often in subtle ways.

If the restaurant is also a bar or pub, then alcohol becomes the topic of discussion. I ought to have a drink. It does not matter whether I like the taste of the beverage (I cannot explain it exactly, but I can actually taste the alcohol, and that flavour is very unappetizing to me), I ought to drink an alcoholic beverage in particular. In that I am taken to be of the masculine sex, I am frequently scolded for not drinking beer, a beverage that is strongly associated with masculinity in the society I belong to. In my youth, I was told by a friend that “no one likes beer, we all just get used to it.” That one was expected to build up a tolerance to the bitter taste, as a show of one’s manhood.

I didn’t always drink water. In my youth, I tended to drink flavoured beverages like most people. I didn’t even think much about it for a very long time. However, after some fairly significant events in my life, I decided to switch to water exclusively. Initially, I was put off by the taste; water was flavourless and uninteresting, and I missed the previous thrill of a mouth full of sugar. But after about a month of strictly drinking just water, I stopped missing the sugar, and started finding the refreshing features of water to be more palatable. Furthermore, I found my body responded positively to the change, having more energy and less “heaviness.” I figure what I was feeling is similar to what some people consider as “detoxifying.”

It was a challenge to switch from other beverages to simply water, but it was much easier than I expected to switch myself. I like water. I prefer water now. However, the ongoing challenge is not from within but from outside me. As I have described above, social pressures continue to be exerted against me, suggesting I ought to do otherwise. I am strange, and perhaps less healthy as a result of my choice. As Scheer suggested, “the idea that these types of products that we’ve been drinking as human beings, eating as human beings for a millennia—that now all of a sudden that they’re unhealthy, it’s ridiculous.” This represents an incredibly powerful pressure against my choice to drink water, especially after discovering that milk itself seemed to be the culprit to years of heightened allergic reactions to dust and other debris in the atmosphere.

The point of this discussion is not whether water is healthy or not healthy as a beverage, or whether science agrees or disagrees with such statements. The point is that the social structures of my community are focused on influencing my choice of beverage, using whatever tools are available to them to encourage me to behave in a very particular way. Like when my friend encourages me to drink beer because it is the masculine thing to do, a politician encourages me to drink milk because it is the traditional thing to do (and because it will support local businesses as well).

My preference to drink water, and my actually being able to do so, expresses my freedom. What makes it more apparent that it is a freedom is that it seems to be in direct opposition to the pressures that take place around me. Were my preference to be aligned to the social structures of my community, it may not be as clear whether it was a freedom expressed, or a conforming to outside influences. So freedom might be understood as the situation where one contradicts the pressures and influences. But then there may not be a way to determine if a freedom can be (or is) expressed when it happens to agree with the pressures and influences.

Returning to my friend, why we might understand it as “financial freedom” is not necessarily that it is free. We might interpret it as suggesting he simply wants to practice his personal economics in a manner that is unlike the that which is practiced by most people in our society.

Black Lives Matter

crimsonLeave a comment

I wanted to continue with my discussion on time, but with all that is going on in the world, I thought I’d take a break to discuss another matter. As you are probably aware, events in the United States of America (USA) have escalated and the pandemic has been lowered in priority in that country. This has occurred in some other countries as well. And the short response I would like to offer up is: it’s about time.

Actually, that response is far from complete. It is too short a response to really reflect what my feelings are on this matter. And, it is a little misleading, as the revolution that I think is needed is still a ways off. Peaceful protest, I believe, will be insufficient to affect the sorts of long term changes that are required by the human race in this situation. Allow me to explain.

While the following will be an over simplified view of humanity, I think it captures a lot of what has led us to this point. When I look upon the world, I am struck by what I see. I find that there are those things that are similar or the same as I am familiar with, and those things that are different. For example, there are these other beings that wander the world as I do; these other beings are very similar to me in some ways, but very different in other ways. The more similar they are to me, the more comfortable I might feel; the more different, the more uncomfortable I might feel. When I am comfortable, I tend to relax and trust. When I am not comfortable, I tend to fill with anxiety and become protective of myself.

Perhaps my personal history is unusual or unique, but I find that the differences vastly outweigh the similarities most of the time. I focus on the differences far more than the similarities. Personally, I don’t find many other beings like myself. Now, I could choose to be hostile to all these different other beings. I could choose to lash out and harm these other beings. But I don’t. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I was pretty well alone in the world—alone in that I cannot experience the world from the perspective of those other beings, and those other beings could not experience the world from my perspective—and so I would have to withhold my complete, blind trust from those who had not in some way given me a reason to trust them. I am paranoid. I am resistant. I feel compelled to ALWAYS assess knowledge and information for myself. This is a large part of the reason I was not cut out for military service; I am unable to blindly follow orders without first thinking about what is being asked of me, and assessing whether I ought to obey or resist the command.

For me, I exist in a world full of challenges and obstacles. Like the philosophical Existentialists, I desire to exercise my freedom to assign value in a world that I believe holds no intrinsic value. It is a lot of work assigning value to everything, but it is what I expect and I am comfortable in that situation now. But it also means that I am reserved in expressing my hostility and aggression as well. I am slow to make decisions, and I am slow to choose my actions. I’d rather take some time to “get to know” another being, before I pass judgement. I’m far from perfect at doing this, but I try my hardest.

Yes, my skin is on the lighter end of the spectrum. Furthermore, when others observe me, I am categorized in the masculine class of beings. And, as may be obvious by this blog, I think and understand in the language of English. This places me squarely in the category of the privileged. In my youth, I did not understand what this meant, but now I do. The world appears to me in a certain way. I understand the things I see in a certain way. I fear some things, and do not fear others. My privilege allows me to move through this world mostly unimpeded. My privilege allows me various advantages with things such as employment and commerce. My privilege is a large part of my world view. What I think is most important for me to always remember is that most of those beings around me do not share this world view.

In the USA, those beings with skin on the darker end of the spectrum than mine have become outraged because an authority figure—who happens to have skin on the lighter end of the spectrum—clearly and purposefully overstepped his authority in a situation that lead to the demise of another being—who happens to have skin on the darker end of the spectrum. The issue that is of concern is that the authority figure chose to behave in the fashion he did as a direct result of the world view that he holds, a world view that diminishes the status of those with skin on the darker end of the spectrum. In my personal opinion, those beings—who now hold frequent and vast peaceful protests in response to this incident—are more than justified in their actions. My largest fear is that the peaceful protesting is not sufficient to bring about the sort of change we appear to desire.

I admit, most of the conversations I usually have are not concerned about the colour of a being’s skin. My conversations more often are concerned with the configuration of the being’s physical body, and what categories those beings are assigned as a result of their configuration. I am more concerned with the issue of sex and gender than I am with the issue of “race,” especially as I think categorizing humans by “race” is completely ridiculous. It would be like deciding to categorize humans by the colour of their hair, or the colour of their eyes, or the length of their bodies, or any number of other physical qualities. There is no good reason to believe that these physical attributes have any direct correlation to other aspects of those beings, such as mental acuity, or ethical ability.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that there isn’t a difference that occurs between those of various “races.” But those differences occur not because of direct differences in physical attributes; they occur as a result of social pressure, which is often related to cultural and political structures that exist in those societies, that have already categorized those beings and afforded different opportunities to those beings, which as a result provide different levels and forms of education and employment to the different “races.” In other words, the game is rigged, which is what the protests are all about.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that the COVID-19 virus has disproportionately affected the black community in the USA, and probably in many other places in the world as well. The reason we ought not be surprised is because those people have more challenges and less resources with which to deal with the situation. Unlike those of us who are privileged enough to have a savings account, and are not living paycheck to paycheck, they cannot simply stay home and self-isolate to protect themselves and their families from a pandemic that is sweeping the world. This simple fact means that there are likely to be more black people wandering the streets, as they go to and from work, to and from the grocery store, etc. And there being more black people wandering the streets means that there is a much higher probability of an authority figure encountering such a person. And if that authority figure is already disposed to believing that a black person is more likely to pose a threat, and then happens to encounter that black person, they are more likely to manage the encounter poorly.

I’ll put this another way. If I tell you that it is considered a bad thing to hold a lit stick of dynamite, because it will likely be poor for your health in the long run, and then I hand you a lit stick of dynamite, because that is the only light source you are allowed to use while travelling in a dark passage, what do you expect is going to happen? You could refuse the lit stick of dynamite, citing my first statement, deciding that your heath in the long run is more important to you than being able to see in the dark passage. You could then muddle your way through, with great challenge, having to feel your way along the walls. Or you could accept the lit stick of dynamite, using it’s meager light to aid you in travelling through the dark passage, bearing the constant risk that the dynamite will explode in your hand, injuring you grievously. This is the situation of many people in our world, including black people in the USA.

So what is the correct answer? Well, how about “why do I need to travel through a dark passage?” Or, “why do I not have access to an alternative light source than a lit stick of dynamite?” Or, “can I talk to someone other than you for assistance, because you are not doing a very good job of providing assistance right now.” These “solutions” clearly don’t address the immediate concern—travelling through a dark passage. They point to something outside the immediate situation. They acknowledge, at least on some level, that there is something like a “bigger picture” that needs to be considered.

In the case of racism, peaceful protests may improve the situation marginally, but I do not believe they will provide a lasting, long term solution to the problem. Yes, change is something that happens slowly over vast periods of time. However, in some situations, change occurs very quickly and violently. And in those situations, it may be necessary to affect the needed change.

Putting this another way, what is needed is not policies of employment equity or defunding the police. While these measures may produce seemingly desirable results in the immediate, short term, the repercussions in the long term would be/are disastrous. What is needed is a cultural/political shift, and not a small one. Institutions need to be broken down. Marriage needs to no longer be a thing, because men don’t need an excuse to enslave women. And people need to not be judged by the colour of their skin, or any other physical features they possess. I would like to say that people should instead be judged by their actions, however, I am not so naive as to think that behaviors have only simple reasoning; that they may instead be extremely complex networks of perfect rationality if considered at length.

I do not have the answer to this issue for one very good reason; I don’t have an alternative. I can talk in negatives as much as I want, saying how things ought not be. What I am not able to provide is a positive response, saying how I think things ought to be. I do not know how the world ought to look. I do not know what world view is best to hold. I obviously privilege my own world view, but that does not make my world view the correct world view. This is simply the opinion of one individual in a world full of billions of individuals.