This may seem to conflict with one of my previous posts.  I hope I can disabuse you of that belief quickly.

A comment to my divorce post really struck home with me.  I’ll repeat the specific line here:

“In our culture, we have learned to be insensitive to anything but the mask of happiness.”   

In letting this thought tumble on permanent press in my brain for a bit, I think I agree with it. 

When someone is upset, we try our best to “cheer them up”.  When we are feeling low, the recommendation is to think positively and have hope/faith/belief that things will be OK.  When someone is dying, or has died, we are expected to be stoic, strong for others, mourning quietly. 

If you’ve ever seen the series Six Feet Under, the first episode draws your attention to how silly this seems. 

Do we adequately acquaint ourselves with pain?  How do we navigate the delicate balance between whining and acknowledging unhappiness? 

We tend to think poorly of those who display unhappiness or are honest about their issues - we look at them as less successful, less equipped to deal with life, less adjusted.  The moment your personal dissatisfaction affects your ability to be cheerful, you should be seeking a therapist, or getting an anti-depressant.   We use phrases such as:

• Keep a stiff upper lip
• Keep your chin up
• Look on the bright side
• Cheer up - things aren’t so bad
• Don’t let it get you down
• Think of/Focus on the positive
• Keep your glass half full
• Nobody likes a gloomy gus
• Leave your problems at the door
• Look for the silver lining

Does this incessant happy-seeking really help us?  Or would we be better served embracing our negative emotion, experiencing it, and then learning from it? 

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating for mass depression.  I have talked about the negative voices we deal with, and how happy people tend to think more logically, and many other things that point to happiness as being a factor in our decisions and how successful we feel. 

And it is true that even pretending to be happy can actually help you BE happier - you can trick the brain into releasing the chemicals you want.  In fact, according to Jill Bolte Taylor, neuroanatomist, we can choose a happier, more peaceful state of being (Nirvana Anyone?) by using more of the right side of our brain.

What I’m saying is that without the embracing of the bad things that happen - without being present with those feelings, accepting and recognizing them - we significantly impair our ability to be truly happy.  Instead, we are putting on the “mask” of happiness: pretending things are good when there really are issues.  Holding our feelings inside of us - or more often these days - taking a medication to feel “normal”.  Our Zoloft world is even-keel, understandable, and keeps us out of the emotional highs and lows so that we know where we “should be”.

Or if you aren’t happy, don’t try to find a way to be happy with what you have.  Find what makes you happy - at all costs. Someone realizes they are unhappy in a “must be happy” world sheds the current skin of where they are, what they do and seeks all new things, looking for happiness externally. 

Is it any wonder that relationships are harder to keep together?  If neither person knows how to deal with pain or unhappiness, when difficulties arise it is that much easier to withdraw  and discard the perceived source of unhappiness than to look within oneself and feel that pain - and work through it.  Dealing with our pain might teach us enough to deal with future issues, or recognizing  a problem too big to overcome before it infests too much of our lives. 

Perhaps the issue lies not with how much we work on our relationship, but how much we do not work on ourselves.  It was Gloria Steinem who said:

Far too many people are looking for the right person, instead of trying to be the right person.”

Working on ourselves and allowing us to feel what is really there might help us to be better partners in our relationships.  Instead of the mask of happiness we currently feel is expected, we would be ok with showing our own expression.  We might be more comfortable with being authentic. 

Being authentic might just lead to lasting, fulfilling relationships.  And perhaps we might just be that much closer to true happiness.

Edit: a TED Talk regarding the nature of happiness with Dan Gilbert.  Funny that Penelope should include this in her post yesterday when I am writing about this.

No comments

These things can always be looked at several different ways.  After listening to WNYC’s RadioLab on “Where Am I?”, I was very uncertain about the brain’s role in religion and spirituality, and how we might create the “proof” for these beliefs.  When the brain loses track of the body, experiences similar to “near-death experiences” occur.  Perhaps these situations are merely a reaction of the brain being confused? Does this call into question other spiritual experiences as really being physical manifestations of some issue, misinterpreted as something esoteric?

Then Dr. Taylor has this stroke of inspiration, which I’m reposting here.  She was featured in the New York Times just last week.  According to Dr. Taylor, nirvana is attainable by choosing to behave and perceive using more of one’s right hemisphere.  There isn’t clarity of exactly how one is supposed to go about doing that (perhaps you need to buy the book?) 

But it is an interesting proposal.  Add in the RadioLab information, and the question becomes even more convoluted. 

First - is it merely an electrical stimulus of the brain we are perceiving as peace? 

Second - does it matter? Does the fact that one can choose to be in nirvana make it less desirable to attain?  Less of a challenge?  I mean think about it - part of the method of attaining nirvana was to let go of the physical - and now we have some indication that nirvana is purely phyiscal?  A matter of making synapses happen more on the right brain than the left.  Does that alter our understanding of most metaphysical teachings?  Meditation?

Perhaps spirituality has less to do with what’s OUT THERE as opposed to what’s IN US, and how we connect to others. 

Anyway - have a look.  (If this video isn’t working for you, go here.)

 

No comments

As a beginning, I would say that I am too often prompted to make posts by reading Penelope’s Brazen Careerist blog.  And rarely because we are discussing careers.

She posted, on Monday, about the Emily Gould article on the NYTimes.  I’d already started reading this post last week because it was left up on the Mac at home (which was probably a fortuitous accident rather than a planned jab).  At that time I’d only ready one page before I had to start preparing for my weekend activities.  Today, I read the whole thing.  My review?  Eerily accurate in the description of online addiction to immediate gratification and communication.  Otherwise?  Sort of a prodigal daughter story mixed with your average rise and fall of a job experience.  Just because it was in the fast-paced and exciting “blogging” career-field doesn’t make it any different than any other job experience.

However, beyond Penelope’s response of a jealous-tinged, “No one is special.  Get over yourself,” it makes me begin to think about online exposure and what propels us to be so open.

It’s an interesting topic.  Privacy is something we fought to protect, and has been included in the interpretation of the 9th Amendment to the Constitution.  How often do we receive privacy notices in the mail, or agree to them online?  Regulation S-P has pushed privacy into the forefront of the investment world.  We can opt out of mailings, opt out of getting phone calls.  How many times do we assert that other people can’t tell us how to live our own lives?  All on the basis of privacy.

So, how do we explain our nation’s growing love of invading privacy and displaying our lives openly?

The Emily Gould article discusses the online blogging phenomenon in a way that  I think many online bloggers might find a little too close to home.  It seems that online, we feel much more safe to share our personal information than if perhaps someone called us and asked.  If someone were to open our diary and tell everyone what we feel, we might freak out.  But we in essence do the same in our blogging world.  Some of us use alternate names for the people involved, but others do not.  And sometimes they don’t have to - as in the Emily article, or with Penelope, we all know who the individual is.  What prompts us to share so much of ourselves online?

Add in myspace, Twitter, and other online apps that allow you to keep in touch all the time, across the globe, and it becomes dizzying how much our culture is moving towards compromising our own privacy.  I admit - I easily put information out there about my life, at times perhaps more than I should. 

Let’s go further - what about Reality T.V.?  No longer happy with the typical soap opera fiction, we have show after show that delves into the lives of real people and their dramas.  The axiom to avoid airing your dirty laundry has changed to promote putting it all out there - even the stained underwear.  And it isn’t just an American phenomenon - Europe loves Reality TV. Reality tv is the definition of uncomfortable levels of sharing - it really exemplifies the whole “watching a train wreck” phenomenon. 

But at the same time, it also evokes a sense of salvation and after-school specials.  Lessons that used to be learned after 30 minutes of family sitcoms like the Cosby Show are now lived out, in painstaking episode after episode, inviting us to learn about “raw and uncut” human nature.  Either you are unsave-able (remember Omarosa of The Apprentice?) or a stray sheep who just needs a little direction to get back to the flock (just about anyone on The Biggest Loser, The Nanny, etc.)  Each person’s success or downfall is watched, discussed, and analyzed.  What did they do wrong?  Who deserves to win?  What are good traits to have, and what are failures?

Even within fictional tv shows such as Sex and the City, we are getting more and more personal in our displays and discussion.  The topics go deeper into the human condition.  Six Feet Under gets pretty vivid into our relationship with life- and with death.

Penelope’s blog is about where work and personal life intersect - and perhaps that’s a telling statement in of itself.  In our workplaces, we hear more and more about work-life balance (subject of future post) which makes us feel as if the two are interconnected more than they used to be.  Dealing with individual’s feelings about their job, their goals and personal issues have become a part of what your manager has to think of on your review.  These things used to not be part of the workplace, but today, you are quite the recluse if you don’t share what you did over the weekend, or talk about someone’s upcoming divorce.

Both Penelope and Emily talk about how they are “moved” to be completely honest with their readers, to share their innermost feelings.  This seems to set them apart from the crowd of bloggers who still use vague references or pen names - and garner them a whole lot of flak from commenters…and family. But is it really them, or a growing cultural phenomenon to open up to strangers?  They aren’t the only ones doing it.  And as Penelope points out, history has had those who felt the need to chronicle their lives and experiences. 

Why would we have this desire to open up to strangers anyway?  It seems antithetical in a world where identity theft is very real and information management is big money.  Even branding has a lot to do with projecting the right brand information out there, not all the brand information.  Is it narcissism and self-infatuation?

Or could it be born of a lack of community?  In our world we are so very separated from each other physically.  Once upon a time, we had a community of people we interacted with, we shared with, we lived around.  Now, this is less so - and perhaps that prompts us to seek out new communities (Livejournal, Tribe, myspace, Facebook, blogs…) in which we can get that human connection again.  In a world where it is sometimes deemed weird to look people in the eye while walking down the street, we feel able to talk about our favorite sexual position online.  Or share our poetry.  What we did last weekend.  Our breakup, our loss of a friend, our one-night-stand, our embarrassing drunken situation.  Things we might only tell a diary or a close friend…

And further - we are able to be whatever we want to be.  In the physical community, if you talked a lot about being a dancer, but no one ever saw you dance, few would believe your initial statement.  Now, someone can go online and do a minimal amount of researching to have an opinion on anything, and then position oneself as being part of that community.  And few people will be able to check your credibility because they don’t REALLY know you, despite how many IM’s you share.  Perhaps we feel free in expressing everything not because we feel close to the people on the net but because we feel separate from them - protected?  From revelation, from being who we really are, from having to explain ourselves.  Entitlement?

These are all just theories and thoughts - I don’t have an answer.  But I’d like your theories and thoughts.  I’d also like to throw out a couple of questions for those who inspire my post.  I’d really like to get insight into the source of their sharing.

Penelope:  What drives you to post about your personal life?   You could just write a diary and keep it to yourself, or write emails in gory detail to a friend.  What prompts you to feel you should share these things with others? Is it a feeling?  A liberation?  Is it a self-established code that you live by?

Emily:  Your article really seems to indicate that you feel the person you were who shared everything was the wrong person to be and that you’ve changed.  What makes you feel you should share less?  Is it your negative experiences?  What is it that pushes you to distance yourself from the online sharing - and why do you think that is better than what you were doing? 

2 comments

 

I think this may, in fact, be true.

Take off your cynicsm hat, and put on your open-mind cap.  And dispose of any “psychological clap-trap” judgment meters.  This may push the boundaries of self-help, but give it a chance.

I was contemplating upon many things that have happened in my life, including my recent impending divorce.  PNC (Personal Negativity Coach) stepped in and said, ”Guess Love doesn’t really conquer all.”

And I felt down.  I felt like somehow I’d failed to do…whatever it was I was supposed to do to save my failed marriage.  That if I’d really “loved” this person, that it should have worked.  I felt as if I’d neglected to follow the blueprint for a successful marriage, and that I didn’t love “enough”.

Or - the converse - that love is really just sort of a nice thing to have in a relationship, but it isn’t necessary or dependable.  That “head-over-heels” will ultimately become “bending-over-backwards” and “laughing-all-the-way-to-the-bank”.  Furthermore, that love is only one aspect of many aspects of marriage that needs to be sound.

While I don’t disagree with the latter statement that love cannot be all you have in a relationship, it still doesn’t fit that whole idea that Love Conquers All.  So - there I was, feeling low for a moment in thinking that either A) I was a failure at Love or B) Love is not as powerful as it seems.

Option B is surprising to me.  I am moved to do so many things through Love, moved further than any other feeling moves me.  I sacrifice more, I give more, I am more vulnerable to fulfill the mandates of Love.  I would have once said that Love moves me to make poor choices, as well.  So, not only was I possibly a failure at Love, but it might be less worthwhile to pursue.  How depressing is that?

But something inside me disagreed.  I recognized a voice that was distinctly NOT PNC.

No.

It isn’t the lack of Love, or that Love is less powerful than believed to be.  It is the shifting of Love.  The balance of it.  Love does not push me towards poor choices.  Instead, I love the poor choice more than I love choosing something better.  I loved a man more than I loved myself, more than a healthy relationship.

It was only because I began to love myself again that I chose to leave. It seems odd, because in those dark moments you seem so very far from loving yourself.  In those stark times of making the final decision to leave, you wonder how you could love yourself, how the shattered pieces of what you had represent how UNlove-able you are. 

But in reality, you are making that decision to choose a better you.  To allow yourself to be loved - by you, by someone else.  To choose something healthy over something unhealthy, no matter how much it may seem to hurt you at this time.  Because you Love, you choose wisely.

This brings me to realize that many of those old axioms about fools and blindness in Love are missing something.  There are hundreds of sayings: I am two fools I know, for loving, and for saying so - Love is blind - To be wise and love is scarcely granted to the angels above.  And sure, many people who are experiencing the first light of Love seem to be heart-sick, unable to see someone’s faults, wearing rose-colored glasses and all the other trite phrases. 

Maybe Love really doesn’t grow until that “glowing” phase goes away.  Until you interweave yourself with this other person.  Or in the case of self, until you sit inside your own being and really feel.  Building a Love for yourself enables you to open up and truly Love others, beyond dependency, beyond allaying loneliness.

When you really Love, you see the person for who they are.  And you see yourself for who you are.  You make choices wisely for the good of both of you.    The sacrifices you make take into account the balance of Loving someone and Loving yourself.  Love helps you to see how you can be happy for yourself and with another.  And Love helps you see when it is time to move on.

That is the powerful nature of Love. 

Amor Vincit Omnia.  Love conquers all.

1 comment

 

When perusing blogs, I came across the article, “8 Reasons Windows Users Don’t Switch.” (care of SteelBuddha).

I thought I’d open the conversation to a less “Mac-oriented” world, if only to avoid the rabid bite-back.  I think Steven Leigh’s article has hit the nail on the head in just about every point.  (well…I would contend that Vista and I are not on speaking terms, but I digress…)  It is true that there are generalities made about those who use Windows (Window of Opportunity referrring to corporate people and big-whigs - those of us only interested in money and power) and those who use Apple (hipsters and artists, the cool people who make beautiful things, or hippies and trend fanatics.)

I’d like to respond to the points myself and perhaps add a couple others that may not have been considered.

I’ll start out with a discussion about my background with Macs.  I have had computers in my house since I was six years old (24 years) and it wasn’t until last year that I had an Apple.  However, at grade school we only had PET computers or the glorious Apple IIe - with the first MOUSE I had ever seen.  There was ONE in the entire rural school.  By the time I went to high school, they had PCs. I’ve had various PCs most of my life, usually on the low end.  My first husband had an old old old Apple II of some sort that was only suitable for playing Mah Jong and typing up term papers, which he still did on my PC. 

Last year, I obtained a three year old iMac laptop with OS X (no idea what animal) that had primarily been used as a speech pathology tool.  Within a few months, I was avoiding the thing as much as I could until we purchased a new computer.  We want to give it to a new owner, but that would require getting it to boot up again so we can erase our old files.

So I’ve been no Mac fan - but PCs have many problems too.

1.    Ignorance

It’s true - I lack knowledge about how Macs work and this is a huge hindrance for me.  While the author indicates that the GUI and task usability is intuitive, I find myself frustrated by Macs.  I find myself not knowing where to find some of the most basic things.  Whether this is due to years of familiarity with PCs or some disconnect in my brain, it still makes me leary about giving Apple a spin.

2.   The Office

This is a huge reason for me.  Every office I’ve ever worked in uses PCs and Windows exclusively, and I often bring work home.  These days I bring the work laptop home, but just the idea of having to switch platforms mentally is not appealing to me.

3.    Hardware

This wasn’t something I’d considered because I have enough ignorance about Apple to not know whether EVERYTHING they sell is customizable.  From reading this article, I note that it is NOT, and this too is a huge detractor.  What if I want to change the motherboard?  What if I want to add hardware?  A company that makes it hard to make my computer MINE would seem to me to be trying to squeeze extra dough out of the users.  It feels like leasing a car - I’m not allowed to fully use it, change it, or really make it MINE.

4.    Price

I know little about the price of Macs, but I can tell you something about the price of iPods.  Holy Moley!  We’ll get more into the price vs. the usability of that little piece of metal shortly.

5.     Lies

Steven brings up one of the top reasons why I’ve never gotten a Mac - none of the games on the shelves work with Macs.  Almost everything I’ve ever wanted to play has played on PC only…or if there was an Apple version, it was more expensive or hard to get. 

I’ve also had tons of my friends who do use Macs indicate that Macs are better, are superior, are more efficient, less buggy, etc etc.  My personal experience with Macs has not been any of these things.  In fact, I’ve always felt that Apple has pumped up its products to an unreal expectation.  They don’t appear to be easier to use, less expensive, better made, or all that better thought out.  I’ve always wondered, “What’s the big deal?”

 And let’s discuss the iPod.  I spent a LOT of money on the iPod for many reasons.  Nothing seems to equal hubris more than to say that you’ve created a device that works on both Apple and PC.  Then watch how clunky the connection to the PC works.  Nothing says, “Screw you” more than your iTunes library becoming corrupted 8 times in the span of one year.  At best, my iPod and my computer have a thin truce until one decides to vomit on the other.  I’ve also had to reset my iPod at least 6 times, had to reinstall iTunes three times.  At one point, just having the iPod plugged in would keep my computer from booting up.

No joke.  It is has been mainly my experience with the iPod that has kept me from really giving Apple a full out try.  I tried somewhat with my iMac laptop, but it died too.

Oh - and I’d like some background on that “Apples don’t get viruses” malarky.  The laptop went all wonky after it was subjected to some serious virus ridden docs.  Simple logic indicates that the viruses might have made a difference there.

6.   Windows Bashing

This ties in a lot with the previous, but I’ll add on that one of the reasons I know so little about Macs is because when I do hear about them, it is only in reference to how much Windows sucks.  The very fact that Apple portays PC users as “The Man” offends me.  I’m not Corporate America.  I’m quasi-average Jo.  I’m also an artist to some degree.   So, purporting that I’m on the “Dark Side” of the Force does not win me over.

7.   Vista

Vista has the capability to be super powerful.  But it is also super buggy, and the experience of moving to Vista (which was FORCED on many of us) makes me feel that changing to Apple would be similar.  Suddenly, certain hardware and tools didn’t work anymore.  Games and programs all had to go because Vista didn’t support them.  I cannot explain the level of annoyance this caused for my household.  So the very idea of going through an even BIGGER upheaval with a switch to Apple is anathema.

8.    Mac Users

This one is a large component - but I have to say the Apple user doesn’t fall far from the Apple Company.  Apple’s elitist attitude has positioned it as the snooty know-it-all that the regular person can’t get behind.  The same issues I have with our current administration (Bush & Co) is the problem I have with Apple - hubris and arrogance.  And I’ve read enough classical literature to know that those with hubris and arrogance always fall. 

Additional Reasons:

Comfort:  It’s comfortable to be using a PC.  It’s what I’ve been doing for years.  I know Apple frames that statement as part of the “old way” whereas Apple exemplifies the new generation.  But this isn’t Computers vs. Typewriters here.  It’s Pepsi vs. Coke.  Two similar products that accomplish the same goals in slightly different ways.  The pluses of changing to a Mac are simply not good enough to make me want to even consider changing.

Compatibility: Steven Leigh mentions in item #2 that MS Office compatibility is there.  Yet when I read reviews I read that compatibility between Apple and PC in MS Office is a joke.  All the things that highly efficient Office users want to do are not easy, or sometimes even possible.

This has been long, but I’d like to know what your feelings are.  What do you prefer to use and why?  If you’re a rabid Apple fan, feel free to explain (succinctly and courteously) why you feel Mac is the way to go.  Does the trendiness play a part?  Do you really feel it is easier to use? 

PC lovers - speak out as well.  I’d love to know of people out there who have both Apple and PC experience and ultimately chose PC.  Why?

And just for kicks, if you ever owned a TI-99, please give a shout-out here.  I’d love to commiserate with those who have experienced the Wumpus.

3 comments

So I noted I was emailing someone today with the statement, “Yeah, sorry I didn’t get back to you right away.  It’s been crazy.”

And I suddenly realized that I write that statement ALL THE TIME.  As in, at least once a week do I tell someone that my week has been crazy, or crazy-busy.  

It’s true - I have something planned for every night this week, I work full 8 hour days, and during those 8 hour days I have to often contemplate things that I must deal with in those off hours.  And something rather crazy DID happen this week in addition to the regular busy-ness. 

And it is true that I tend to have things like this happening all the time - my weeks fill up pretty quickly with busy-ness, and it feels sort of crazy to get to the various things that I’ve put together.  And it feels like I always have a busy week to point to when I didn’t manage to get to the gym AGAIN.  Yeah. We won’t get into priorities here.

So, if you are crazy all the time, is that normal?  And what qualifies as relaxing? 

What qualifies in reality as crazy?  I mean, do I have to have a shower of pink frogs raining on my city to qualify as crazy?  Or can I just feel like I’ve got that wide-eyed crazed look like Howard Beale during his “mad as hell” speech? 

I don’t suppose that having too many outings with friends for drinks counts as “crazy” does it?

Can having a crazy situation occur in the midst of being busy count as a whole week of craziness?

Is the term relative to my experience?  If I feel like it is crazy, is it so?  Does one crazy event in a week make a whole week crazy from dealing with the reverb from that one event? Or do I have to have a packed schedule? 

For that matter, if I feel like work has been “crazy”, can I really carry that crazy-ness label over into my afterhours life?

Or does the craziness of my week depend on comparison to other people’s weeks for a crazy-meter rating of some sort?  Am I just purporting a crazy week when in reality my week is moderately busy compared to others?

Should I just say “Oh, I had a normal busy week,” with the knowledge that people knowing me will know that equals pretty darn busy?  Or am I trying to get drama points?  I note that I do not call a week insane unless something extremely wild or odd has occurred…like the random discovery of lypossage.

Have we, as Americans, grown too used to running around with a jam-packed day as our normal existence that it really IS “crazy” or “insane”?  Has our habit of long-hours, back-to-back meetings, fast-food nation style made us a burgeoning mad house of a country?  (I’m pretty sure Europe would give us a YES on that one.)

And does any of this give me the right to forget to call/email someone back?

What is “crazy” for you?  At what point do you start to describe your week as crazy? 

Two Crazy Quotes for you - one fitting this discussion, and one just funny as heck.

There is no salvation in becoming adapted to a world which is crazy.
–Henry Miller

You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America’s Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn’t want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named ‘Bush’, ‘Dick’, and ‘Colon.’ Need I say more?

–Chris Rock

No comments

So, a conversation with some fellow …well, I don’t know what they are, because that’s just the problem…led me to believe that much like anything in language, terms for the socially-inept-but-intelligently-endowed-often-enjoying-science-and-fiction-and-the-combination-of-the-two subset of culture are not unanimously agreed upon.

Not clear?  How about this…no one can agree on the definition and heirarchy of the words GEEK, NERD, or DORK.

It appears we have various impressions of what these words mean, and we also have varying degrees of who belongs in which category.  So, here is our little experiment - please help us if you can!

1. What do you call yourself?
2. What is the heirarchy of “coolness” of these terms?
3. What do these terms mean to you?

Dictionary.com and Webster.com have varying definitions:

---

Dork Dictionary.com says noun Slang.

1.	a stupid or ridiculous person; jerk; nerd.

 (Dictionary.com also infers that Dork is a euphemism for a vulgar word that sounds similar.  Webster indicates that the etymology of Dork might come from said vulgar word.)

Webster says  

slang : nerd; also : jerk 4a

Geek

Dictionary.com says Slang. –noun

1.	a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.

2.	a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)

3.	a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.

Webster says  

1 : a carnival performer often billed as a wild man whose act usually includes biting the head off a live chicken or snake
2 : a person often of an intellectual bent who is disliked
3 : an enthusiast or expert especially in a technological field or activity <computer geek>

Nerd

Dictionary.com says noun Slang.

1.	a stupid, irritating, ineffectual, or unattractive person.

2.	an intelligent but single-minded person obsessed with a nonsocial hobby or pursuit: a computer nerd.

Also, nurd.

Webster says  

: an unstylish, unattractive, or socially inept person; especially : one slavishly devoted to intellectual or academic pursuits <computer nerds>

---

So, the summary of those definitions appears to be the following:

• Nerds and Geeks are generally intellectual, whereas Dorks are stupid and equatable with jerks.
• Dork is the only definition with a comedy effect.  (ridiculous person)  This may explain its use by the Geek/Nerd community.
• Geek actually used to be a guy that bit the head off a chicken.
• Nerds are unattractive and obsessed with intellectual pursuits (Jean-Paul Sartre would fall in here then).
• Geek is the only one that references it can be a self-given title.

So, do these connect with what you understand of these terms?  How do they differ?  Do you ever use the terms for certain purposes, such as intimacy or humor?  (as in, say your girlfriend says a silly joke - do you lovingly call her a dork?)

Want my opinion?  Of course you do!

1. I am a Geek by personal definition.
2. Coolness level for me has always been Geek/Nerd/Dork.
3. Geek-ness usually meant interest in social geek activities such as watching science fiction, gaming, computers, and more.  Nerds did much of the same, but often had less of an understanding of social graces, perhaps were a little more intense in their following of certain things. I.e., Geeks watch some anime (perhaps grew up on Robotech) but Nerds watch it obsessively.  Dorks are social outcasts that try too hard, don’t “get it”, and don’t really belong. Dorks usually tried to like the same stuff as a certain group just to fit into that group, not because they really liked it.

Please note that I have not included Dweeb, Fatbeard, Knuckle-Dragging Mouth Breather or Basement Dweller.  These are negative labels used inside and outside the Geek/Nerd community as sub-categories, and are pretty obvious to detect.  Dweeb might be able to have its own discussion, but it is my experience that most people understand that it is a negative term.

2 comments

So, a thought popped into my head today after thinking about the various cultures of the world.

It seems that, in some form, most cultures have history of female subjugation.  The Indians, Chinese, Japanese, English, Italians, Jewish, French, Africans (insert numerous groups here), and many others have all had periods of time where women were considered the lesser gender, barred from numerous rights, and rigidly pushed into traditional roles. 

I have a few questions about this.

1. Is female subjugation a necessary part of our evolution?  Is it something that we are to move beyond and therefore there will be a time where gender equality is a reality?  (if you think it is a reality now, I’d really be interested in your theory behind that.)
2. Is female subjugation part of human nature?  Is it part of “How It Is” and it will be an eternal struggle?
3. Do we believe that female subjugation existed in any of these cultures before the influx of religious belief?  It occurred to me that many of the religious texts specifically are quoted when referring to the “duties” of women in comparison to men.  Is there existence of subjugation before religion?
   1. If pre-religious proof exists, can it be tied to a purpose?
   2. If pre-religious proof does not exist, is there a reason why religion felt it was important to subjugate women?  Because it doesn’t make much sense - if religious leaders/prophets/whathaveyou really thought ahead, they would have created something that was welcoming for men AND women.  Because here you are with more than half of the world being women, and few (if any) major religions being kind towards them.  In my opinion, if you want a major reason why religion probably is losing its hold and more people are turning a-religious, it could be because a major population of the world is hugely disenfranchised by religion.
      1. On that note, wouldn’t an all-knowing god/deity have known that the population would teeter towards more women, and therefore have planned ahead in its holy texts to create buy-in for that population? Or…is that a major component of armageddon?  Perhaps the Deity DOES see ahead and feels that a world with a majority of women (many of whom have growing power and influence) needs to be destroyed?  Does that Deity feel that many women = hell? (I know several men that feel this way, so it would be pretty strong proof that God is a man…although I also know a few women that feel this way too.)
   3. What purpose does Female subjugation serve in Religion?
4. What purpose does Female Subjugation serve in our world? 
5. (gets ready for flaming) Did women ask for female subjugation or…even more difficult to imagine…did they create it, or help create it?

Seriously - were women looked at by men who realized, “Holy crap…she creates life.  Perhaps I need to find a way to harness that power!” and thus the subjugation begins?  Is it born of fear?  Is it born of necessity?  Is it born of desire?  Did women decide that the best way to get along would be to create a culture where women had a place?  Did women have anything to do with it?  If you read The HandMaid’s Tale, you realize that the world of subjugated women is really dreamed up by a woman, but put into action by a man.

Some of these may seem obvious, but I’m not willing to discount any theory.  Things are so muddled in this area that I am often wondering how men could have pulled it off by themselves…I often find that to have true, heart-striking cruelty, you need a woman’s touch.  But perhaps it only took subjugating one woman to the point where she believed in it enough to add those nicely subtle details that really tear down progress. 

Your thoughts are welcome, invited, and will be considered. 

No comments

The other day, I was listening to a podcast from Logically Critical called Why Atheism? (as a quick aside, I laughed my butt off at the Ode to a Superhero episode.)

Overall, the episode is very good - basically explaining to people what atheism really is - a lack of belief in a higher being.  Atheists are often forgotten in the “Freedom of religion” debate, and I’d never considered that Atheists are often unwilling to share their beliefs (or lack thereof) for fear of being discriminated against at workplaces, social events, etc. 

One point at the end really struck me powerfully, which is the purpose of this post.  The host indicated that, as an Atheist himself, he was constantly worried about the intentions of those that are extremely religious, and their goals in this world.  Since, in many Judeo-Christian beliefs which are predominantly in power in the West, this world is treated to be mainly as a den of sin and just a layover till we get on that next plane to the afterlife,  why would any of them care what happens to it? 

I think I have happened upon this thought before, but I never let it sink in as deeply as I did after listening to the podcast.  It was shockingly frightening - and I understood what the host was talking about.

Genesis 1:28 clearly indicates to Adam, the progenitor of all mankind, that the world is his to do with as he wishes.  Quoting from Bibletools.com:

 1:28  And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

 Now, environmentalists have been pointing to this passage as a source of our huge distance from the natural world, and our centuries of tearing it apart for our current societal goals.  And that is, in itself, disturbing.

But what about the social impact as well?  If we are to believe Religioustolerance.org’s chart, over 2 billion worldwide are Christian, and 14.5 million are Jewish.  That means that a major portion of the world reads the Bible/Pentateuch - where this verse exists.

Bibletools wants to clarify to environmentalists that this has been misread for a long time:

Genesis 2 contains a parallel account of creation, adding detail to certain parts of the narrative of the first chapter. Notice God’s expanded instruction: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend [dress, KJV] and keep it” (verse 15). This greatly modifies the force of “have dominion” and “subdue it” from Genesis 1:26, 28!

Tend (Hebrew ‘abad) means “to work or serve,” and thus referring to the ground or a garden, it can be defined as “to till or cultivate.” It possesses the nuance seen in the KJV’s choice in its translation: “dress,” implying adornment, embellishment, and improvement.

Keep (Hebrew shamar) means “to exercise great care over.” In the context of Genesis 2:15, it expresses God’s wish that mankind, in the person of Adam, “take care of,” “guard,” or “watch over” the garden. A caretaker maintains and protects his charge so that he can return it to its owner in as good or better condition than when he received it.

 It made me feel better about those that actually know this, but how many do not know this?  How many read the Bible and take it at its current interpretation and don’t have the explanation behind it? (see Edit below)

In essence, how many read that passage in the Bible and feel no compunction about what happens to the Earth or the people in it because this world doesn’t matter - only heaven matters?

It makes me view our president differently as well.  Part of what really annoyed me about him is his arrogance - the audacity he had to stand up in the face of the people of the world and say, “We’re going to support oil because it is more sustainable and environmentally friendly than coal.” (or really, whatever crazy thing he’s saying lately…like nuclear energy being renewable and has no emissions.  A claim could be made that our education system might be making more of a difference on the environment than our fuel system, but I digress.)  Needless to say, I thought to myself, “How does he have the balls to stand up there and say he’s doing things to benefit our environment, and then do whatever lines his pockets with money?”  How can he say the Iraq War is about freeing people, when it really is about cheap oil so he and his cronies can make more money?

But now, my eyes are wide.  President Bush is a man of faith.  Perhaps this really IS a religous war. Perhaps he is acting in accordance with his beliefs to fight an “opposing” religion, without regard the world at hand because this world does not matter - only the afterlife matters.  Eerie.  Saving those oil fields from heathens to heat the homes of Christians worldwide, and if it destroys the earth - who cares? 

Dominion over the Earth and Subdue it.

There are those out there that believe he is actually a member of Christians that is apocalyptic in belief, and that his actions are directly pointed at destruction, in order to bring around the Apocalypse sooner.  Because heaven is all we are waiting for, right?  A video found by a friend - I have not watched it yet. 

I’m not sure how I feel about this - I guess the world-lovin’ part of me wants to believe that people couldn’t be this misguided.  For some reason, it makes me feel better to believe that Bush is ambivalent, or ignorant, towards the environment instead of attacking it purposefully.

On top of all of this, how do environmentalists - or anyone - convince any of these believers that it is IMPORTANT, nay, IMPERATIVE to take action about the negative impact we have on the environment? If the world is just an annoying traffic light between you and your afterlife (which is promised to be a rockin’ good time at the right hand of God and all), why would you ever choose to ride a bike instead of drive?  Or put your money into sustainable living methods?  Or do anything that preserved the world at all?

Have we produced a religion with a deity that creates a world, and then empowers the creature creations of that world to destroy it?  Can global warming survive Judeo-Christian belief?  Have we pressed the self-destruct button on our world through the creation of a faith that values everything after death more than the world of the living? 

 A 2000 year countdown, and we didn’t even know the clock was ticking.  Where’s Bond when you need him?

Edit:

I had a conversation with a devout Catholic man after posting this who indicated that he was, and believes all Catholics are, taught the differences in the Hebrew that lead one to understand that subdue is inaccurate and it really means “stewardship”.  Having been in evangelical studied for 10 years instead of Catholicism, I did not know that.  I only discuss what I was taught - which did not involve any sense of responsibility for the earth.  I would also like to point out that I was not taught to destroy it either. 

(disclaimer: Because I listened to a podcast on Atheism does not necessarily indicate I am Atheist.    Thanks.)

(Disclaimer 2: I understand that some of this post may sound sensational - at the very least, it has some generalizations.  My concern still exists, however, and would love to know what you’ve experienced with regard to religious teachings of such a nature. )

No comments

I was reading Brazen Careerist again today - catching up on recent posts (btw  - her 9/11 post really got me emotional.)  Something made me revisit a couple of the first posts I’d ever read on her blog - about her marriage. 

 And one of them focuses on the Myth of the Stay-At-Home-Dad.  It’s something that does concern me a lot.  I am married a year, living together for 4.  I’ve always had more of a “career” than he and supported our lifestyle.  He became a massage therapist a few years ago and is quite fantastic at it.  We are very lucky to have found something he loves and is talented at.

But it isn’t a steady workflow, and he’s home a lot.  If the economy tanks, fewer people get massage.  To get the steadier work, you have to contract with another health provider or a spa, which takes a cut.  And it never will be very much in the way of income unless he is one of the 1% of massage therapists that manage to make it big somehow. 

I’m ok with this.  Yes - it would be nice to have more income at times.  But it also gives me a great feeling to be supporting his “art” per se.  It gives him so much in the way of happiness, which feeds our happiness.  And we are very happy the majority of the time.  So I pay most of the bills, and he provides what he can.  I don’t judge his massage as less worthy.  If anything - he changes the world way more than I do, and that I can help him in that process makes me feel like I am part of it.

But as part of having a job that is not as active, I feel that on the days he has off, he needs to take care of the house.  That it is part of his “job”, since two days of the week are usually completely empty of appointments.  And not passively - but really take care of it.  We rent, so we don’t have a yard or such to deal with. It’s cleanliness - dishes, laundry, vacuuming, taking out garbage - house cleaning.

That doesn’t mean I don’t do things around the house too.  We have a tacit agreement that I ALWAYS clean the bathtub and the bathroom floor.  I clean on weekends and am responsible for the general organization of stuff.  But there appear to be no tacit agreements about anything for him.  Still, he does the laundry almost all the time, and the dishes probably about 70% of the time. 

He does complain about it though, and I’m not sure how to deal with it.  To me, it just makes sense - you are HOME.  You should take care of the house more (instead of playing video games).  If you do not work as much as the other person, and we have no children yet, take care of the house.  Do what you can to make it look great all the time.  Cook food.  I would feel responsible for these things if I was at home and someone was making sure I had a home and food.  He complains that he always does the laundry, or I don’t do enough of the dishes.  Yet, I am looking around and see that he hasn’t EVER emptied the bathroom garbage (that’s me, folks - the only one who does that) or that his breakfast dishes are still on the table.

Me coming home and complimenting him on everything he’s done has made improvements.  It makes him know I’m aware of what he has done, and how much I appreciate it.  But it hasn’t caused more to be done.

Or at the very least, work on your personal business.  Research marketing options.  Paper the neighborhood with homemade ads.  But I’m the business person - so in the end, I usually end up working on his business as well.  Because I can accomplish the needed research faster and with more desirable results.  It’s what I do for a living.  And I have a business sense and understanding of what that world is like.  Ask me where a piriformis muscle is, and I wouldn’t have a clue.  Ask me how to market your home business, and I can help you.

This is a long introduction for my main question:  What happens when we have kids?  We are considering family, and we’ve talked about our options.  As much as I’d like to stay home with a child and take care of the house, the kid, and work on my dance practice, I am the “bread-winner”.  I have more earnings potential now than he may ever have. 

So, we pretty much have come to the idea that he will stay home with the kids.  But this may put a huge dent in his massage practice.  I’m not sure he is ok with this, or not as much as he thinks he is.  We recently shut down the home-based version of his massage business and he was extremely unhappy about it.  He still gives massage by appointment at your house, but not in our house.  And I think he feels a sense of failure about this, even though it doesn’t change his client-base or income level.  How will he handle the fact that kids may close down even more of his business?  Not all of it, because we have many options, but certainly more than now. 

I’m not sure, and in finding Penelope’s blog again, I’m reminded that this is something he and I need to keep discussing.  And yes, I commented to her blog.  I think it was misinterpreted that I don’t do anything around the house, but the points are the same.  (and to respond to JohnMcG, yes - when I am out of work or even home sick, I feel it is my responsibility to take care of the house more because I am making up for my half of things.  So, I would feel that I agree - and I’ve put the theory to the test personally. )

My final question here is - why does it seem to be a much larger issue with dads than it seems to be with moms?  Or am I not being fair?  Is it a huge issue with moms too?  Why does it sound like dads have a harder time dealing with staying home with the kids?  Am I wrong for expecting that the person who is home more often should put in more effort with the house?  I’d expect it of a woman too.  My roommate and I had a similar understanding for a while as well.  Am I too mercenary?  Do you know of stay-at-home dads that enjoy it or are successful at it?

No comments