Believe what you will about the morality of this or that, at least bother to learn the difference between each of these three topics:
Sex: A biological feature driven through genetics and subsequent development of primary sexual features (penis, testis, vs vagina, uterus, ovaries). Because of the use of cosmetic reconstructive surgeries, we must now divide into apparent sex and genetic sex. The proper terms are: Male, Female, Uniq, and Hermaphrodite. There are thus, currently, four possible sexes.
Gender: The SOCIAL construct consisting of stereotypical appearance, behavior and activities often associated with a member of a given sex. Proper terms are Masculine, Feminine, Nutre. In the current social climate, more have been added to better define a place on a spectrum and outside of the linear spectrum. Since this is entirely a social construct, the number of types is inconsequential from a natural / biological perspective.
Sexuality: that which causes a sexual response in an individual. That is, if someone is (primarily) aroused by members of their same species' opposite sex, than they are heterosexual. If that person is primarily aroused by members of their species' same sex, they are homosexual. If they are aroused more-or-less evenly by both, than the term bi may be used, though I would argue that it is misrepresentative.
Here's the problem: the media, mostly composed of those who have no knowledge on the subject and thus should not be given a voice, continuously confuses these things:
Transgendered: someone who's behavior, appearance, or actions fit into a gender not aligned with those associated with their sex. E.G. a male that dresses, behaves, and otherwise comports to a feminine stereotype.
Cisgendered: Standard alignment, e.g. Male and Masculine.
Neither of these have anything to do with biological sex or sexuality. On the other hand:
Transexual: Someone who has undergone a combination of hormone substitution and surgery to change their primary sexual features from one sex to another.
So, here's where it gets interesting. Secondary sexual characteristics are not definitive of sex, but also not necessarily of gender. That is, a male that receives estrogen will grow breasts, but may not elect to remove their penis and testis. This is not truly transsexual, but also, not in-and-of-itself transgendered (though most likely the individual would identify as feminine). I don't believe, within the confines of these criteria, we have a designation that truly fits.
Regardless, there's a lot of debate over these things. If a state wants to require that the person's sex be listed on a driver's license, though that's pointless and often misleading so long as clothing is required, then it should match a birth certificate unless a licensed surgeon presents a certificate that the sex was changed. I would argue, however, that there can only be one sex change result: Uniq, as sexual reproduction becomes impossible regardless of direction of the change. Perhaps "Undefined" may fit this better. In fact, I like that. Undefined works well in these cases. Whatever they thing they are trying to fix with this requirement is undone with one word.
The problem isn't one's sex, and isn't one's gender. The problem is a society that refuses to see beyond stereotypes and requires classification into boxes that may not be appropriate for everyone. We've spent centuries now dealing with racial and cultural stereotyping and judgmentalism. We've spent who knows how long dealing with sexual stereotyping that leads to a need for genders. We can't seem to get to the point where we evaluate everyone as individuals. Until we do, we're going to keep having issues like this.
Sunday, March 3, 2019
Saturday, July 11, 2015
Math
In my opinion, there are a lot of problems with how we teach math. The first is that we only teach the decimal system. Really, a lot of math is just easier to do in oct or hex. In fact, all math is really easy when you change the system to another base. What's 16^4? 0x10000 (0x does not mean 0*, it's short hand for hex).
The second is that we don't start with 0 when teaching kids to count. We really should. So, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. After that, you add another number to the front: 10, 11, 12... Same things with Oct: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13... Same thing with hex: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F,10,12,13... Understanding this from Kindergarten would make math so much easier later on.
We also don't teach logic. This is a big one for me. Logic is the basis for rational thought, but it's also the first step in any mathematical problem. Logic is the difference between going about a problem the hard way and the easy way. Take the above problem. 16x16x16x16 is a pretty big number. I have it memorized from years of doing programming. Computers calculate in binary (well, they do everything in binary...), with data clustered into 8-bit increments called Bytes. Half of a byte is a nibble, and thus this is 4 bits. 2^4 is 16 values (0-15). Every bit doubles the number of values, so 8 bits is 256 (16x16). 16 bits is thus 256x256, 65536. Looking at the problem in binary, that's (2^4)^4, or 2^16. I can write that in a large number of ways. I can write it as 1000000000000000 in binary, 200000 base 8, 10000 base 16. However, the simplest is hex. 16 = 0x10. 10^4 is 10000. Done. I could spend a lot of time calculating in dec, or I could convert to hex and be done. This of course is a simplistic and math-centric use of logic.
Perhaps my biggest problem is that we don't teach why. It took till calculus to learn where 4/3*pi*r^3 comes from. Until then, we're asked to just memorize formulas. I never did memorize formulas well. If I understood something, I was good, but wrote memorization of formulas didn't work for me. I failed some math tests in 3rd grade because they were memorizing multiplication tables. I could do multiplication, but not as quickly as the other students could write the answers to pre-memorized tables. I kept running out of time.
the problem reversed when we started division. Because I truly understood multiplication (didn't just memorize tables), I immediately understood division. Then comes fractions. Most students dread fractions at first. Why? Because they don't understand them. 10/4 is 10 divided by 4. If you know division, you know fractions, it's just a different way of writing the problem. In fact, I prefer fractions to division. It'd hate to write out in decimal 13/9, but I can simplify that to 1 4/9 in a heart been and keep going...
Over-all, there's a belief that children can't understand complicated material. We start teaching simple material and make is more complicated as we go. The problem is, it's like making a foundation out of packed dirt because that's all you need for a hut, and then building a house on it. Really, we should spend more time teaching the basics: how numbers work, and then teaching the rest would take much less time.
The second is that we don't start with 0 when teaching kids to count. We really should. So, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. After that, you add another number to the front: 10, 11, 12... Same things with Oct: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13... Same thing with hex: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E,F,10,12,13... Understanding this from Kindergarten would make math so much easier later on.
We also don't teach logic. This is a big one for me. Logic is the basis for rational thought, but it's also the first step in any mathematical problem. Logic is the difference between going about a problem the hard way and the easy way. Take the above problem. 16x16x16x16 is a pretty big number. I have it memorized from years of doing programming. Computers calculate in binary (well, they do everything in binary...), with data clustered into 8-bit increments called Bytes. Half of a byte is a nibble, and thus this is 4 bits. 2^4 is 16 values (0-15). Every bit doubles the number of values, so 8 bits is 256 (16x16). 16 bits is thus 256x256, 65536. Looking at the problem in binary, that's (2^4)^4, or 2^16. I can write that in a large number of ways. I can write it as 1000000000000000 in binary, 200000 base 8, 10000 base 16. However, the simplest is hex. 16 = 0x10. 10^4 is 10000. Done. I could spend a lot of time calculating in dec, or I could convert to hex and be done. This of course is a simplistic and math-centric use of logic.
Perhaps my biggest problem is that we don't teach why. It took till calculus to learn where 4/3*pi*r^3 comes from. Until then, we're asked to just memorize formulas. I never did memorize formulas well. If I understood something, I was good, but wrote memorization of formulas didn't work for me. I failed some math tests in 3rd grade because they were memorizing multiplication tables. I could do multiplication, but not as quickly as the other students could write the answers to pre-memorized tables. I kept running out of time.
the problem reversed when we started division. Because I truly understood multiplication (didn't just memorize tables), I immediately understood division. Then comes fractions. Most students dread fractions at first. Why? Because they don't understand them. 10/4 is 10 divided by 4. If you know division, you know fractions, it's just a different way of writing the problem. In fact, I prefer fractions to division. It'd hate to write out in decimal 13/9, but I can simplify that to 1 4/9 in a heart been and keep going...
Over-all, there's a belief that children can't understand complicated material. We start teaching simple material and make is more complicated as we go. The problem is, it's like making a foundation out of packed dirt because that's all you need for a hut, and then building a house on it. Really, we should spend more time teaching the basics: how numbers work, and then teaching the rest would take much less time.
Saturday, July 4, 2015
Imigration
Donald Trump, playing his usual role of Court Jester, put on quite a show with his stump speech. If I were to believe him, everything wrong with America is an immigrant's fault. Well, that may be true (just ask the Native Americans, with whom I share some blood), but in the context of his speech, far from it. Is he right about some of it? Yes. Most immigrants from Mexico are not well educated. They don't have a lot of money. I know some that are, but most are not.
Does the constant ingress of uneducated, possibly unskilled, impoverished people hurt the economy? Yes. Are the people worthless? No. Go back a hundred years (not that long ago) and ask a New York native about the Irish. Things have changed in 100 years, but not the rhetoric.
I'm not a huge fan of immigration, I'll come right out and say. I don't like Mexican culture. I don't like Mexican music. I HATE the way the Catholic church has worsened the poverty by discouraging birth control. Unlike the Irish, most of the new immigrants can't even speak English, and rather than learn, states have pandered to them by providing services in Spanish.
Building a wall for billions of dollars, and patrolling the border for millions more per year, while great for local businesses and those who take the job, is not the way to discourage immigration. No one who, as things are, risks all they have to get across the border, is going to be the slightest bit more deterred by a fence. That, and militarizing the border doesn't do great things to our diplomatic relationship with our neighbors.
If we really want people stop coming here, maybe we should help them find good-paying jobs in their own country, where their family lives, where they share a culture and a language, and where they really want to be. In short, to fix the burden immigrants put on the U.S. economy, maybe we should help fix Mexico's?
Let's be fair about this: a lot of Mexico's economic woes are our fault, as is much of the border violence. Mexico, unlike the U.S. outlaws private ownership of firearms. Many (perhaps most) of the weapons the drug cartels use, come from the U.S. On the flip side, most of the drugs those cartels profit from are sold in the U.S. Why? Because it's illegal to grow, produce, or sell them here, resulting in a black market ripe for exploitation.
So to start, we can end the War on Drugs, which, like most of our "Wars' since Vietnam, has succeeded in producing better drug lords, more refined drugs, and steeper profit margins, but has utterly failed to achieve it's goals of a drug-free U.S. By drugs here, I am referring, of coarse, to those not produced and distributed by big pharmaceuticals (well, not anymore at least).
Once the black market has dried up (because it's cheaper to produce in desert-rich west Texas than ac cross the boarder with the check points and all), profits will plummet for the cartels, and mos of them will go on to more lucrative endeavors. With a stabilized border, we can proceed to sending teachers to the border villages to help increase over-all education. Like we do in Japan, we can teach them English while we're at it...
Ultimately, as Mexico's economy improves (and someone finances free condoms), there will be far less immigration into the U.S. Then, the economic burden of the local immigrants will decrease. This does, of coarse, mean no more slave labor for local corporations to exploit, more expensive construction costs, and more expensive imported Mexican clothes (have you looked at the Made In tag on that shirt?). Overall, the bottom range wages will go up with less unskilled workforce willing to work for peanuts, but general expenses will go up.
Ultimately, however, as long as it's cheaper to provide goods and services elsewhere, investor conscious CEOs will keep moving those services to the least expensive locations. So while local wages will increase in the short run, available jobs may ultimately decrease. See, the problem isn't the immigrants, it's free trade and multi-national corporations. More than that, the problem is the stock market and it's dependence on not increasing profitability, but increases in the increasing of profitability.
For those that don't understand, I'll fill you in. A company goes public by selling a portion of the company to investors at large (the stock market). The value of the stock is based on the demand for it, which is in turn determined by the risk / reward ratio of the purchase. That is, does the value of the stock increase or decrease, and by how much how quickly?
A company that shows a profit then must either invest the profit in itself (theoretically driving up the value of the stock), or give holders a portion of the profit. If more stock is needed, then it may be split, resulting in a return to the holder of half the value of stock (a dividend).
So as a company is becoming bigger, and more profitable, stock purchases increase, resulting in more available cash, potentially increasing the bottom line, and driving up the value of the stock. The problem is, this upward trend is not infinitely sustainable. Eventually, the profit will stagnate. Now, that isn't the company actually losing money. That isn't even the company showing expenses in excess of income (in the red). That's simply the company not growing at it's previous rate. At this point, the stock can only decrease in value (unless it's split, which can be expensive). This results in a high risk but low reward environment for the value of the stock (high value, as it's grown, but the value could decrease). Investors start liquidating the stock, and the value plummets. Now, this isn't really a problem for a company, as it's already got the capital from the initial investments and subsequent purchases, but it is for the majority stock holders. The "board" then must act to stop the free fall. They must cut costs to increase the profitability of the company. They will inevitably hire a CEO that will destroy the company in order to re-value the stock. By this I mean that they will sell off assets, fire good people, and move local operations to cheaper countries (where the product will likely suffer from quality control lapses and low worker enthusiasm). In the process, however, the profit of the company will skyrocket resulting in a new stock value surge. During this time the smart investors will slowly sell off their shares and find something new. The company will then have a second crash due to lack of any useful assets, and may or may not get re-built by a new CEO. Meanwhile the CEO who destroyed the company will be hired by another board in a similar position after being let go with a huge severance package. This is capitalism at it's more corrupt. Well, almost most corrupt.
This process is fueled by free trade, where the company can simply move operations to less expensive locations rather than investing in local resources. It's largely responsible for the rising economic inequality, and a number of recessions. Just think of the dotcom bust, as a leading example. It's fueled by America's love for gambling (really, the stock market is a form of gambling).
The problem is several-fold. First, fewer jobs in the U.S. and more people looking for them means that, in a free market, wages are suppressed. The same effect, in reverse, is what drives the move. Lots of people in few jobs have already suppressed wages in the new location. Because wages are low, the populous will never have access to education and other tools to get out of poverty, and wages will remain low. If they don't, the company will find somewhere new with low wages to exploit.
We live in a global economy, and this is a global issue. As Americans we take for granted our quality of life. Ask a laborer in a factory in China or working at one of the call centers everyone hates in India, and they'll tell you about their living conditions that will but all but the poorest Americans to shame. They're the lucky ones that have jobs, too. The absurdity, though, is that this is all means by which a few elites get exuberantly wealthy and use that wealth and influence to craft economic policies to their liking.
As American, we can't change the laws in India or China, but we can tariff the shit out of their goods, making it less expensive to make in the U.S. than import (and helping the tax base a lot, too). However, that means that $10 shirt will be $25 and we can't have that...
Does the constant ingress of uneducated, possibly unskilled, impoverished people hurt the economy? Yes. Are the people worthless? No. Go back a hundred years (not that long ago) and ask a New York native about the Irish. Things have changed in 100 years, but not the rhetoric.
I'm not a huge fan of immigration, I'll come right out and say. I don't like Mexican culture. I don't like Mexican music. I HATE the way the Catholic church has worsened the poverty by discouraging birth control. Unlike the Irish, most of the new immigrants can't even speak English, and rather than learn, states have pandered to them by providing services in Spanish.
Building a wall for billions of dollars, and patrolling the border for millions more per year, while great for local businesses and those who take the job, is not the way to discourage immigration. No one who, as things are, risks all they have to get across the border, is going to be the slightest bit more deterred by a fence. That, and militarizing the border doesn't do great things to our diplomatic relationship with our neighbors.
If we really want people stop coming here, maybe we should help them find good-paying jobs in their own country, where their family lives, where they share a culture and a language, and where they really want to be. In short, to fix the burden immigrants put on the U.S. economy, maybe we should help fix Mexico's?
Let's be fair about this: a lot of Mexico's economic woes are our fault, as is much of the border violence. Mexico, unlike the U.S. outlaws private ownership of firearms. Many (perhaps most) of the weapons the drug cartels use, come from the U.S. On the flip side, most of the drugs those cartels profit from are sold in the U.S. Why? Because it's illegal to grow, produce, or sell them here, resulting in a black market ripe for exploitation.
So to start, we can end the War on Drugs, which, like most of our "Wars' since Vietnam, has succeeded in producing better drug lords, more refined drugs, and steeper profit margins, but has utterly failed to achieve it's goals of a drug-free U.S. By drugs here, I am referring, of coarse, to those not produced and distributed by big pharmaceuticals (well, not anymore at least).
Once the black market has dried up (because it's cheaper to produce in desert-rich west Texas than ac cross the boarder with the check points and all), profits will plummet for the cartels, and mos of them will go on to more lucrative endeavors. With a stabilized border, we can proceed to sending teachers to the border villages to help increase over-all education. Like we do in Japan, we can teach them English while we're at it...
Ultimately, as Mexico's economy improves (and someone finances free condoms), there will be far less immigration into the U.S. Then, the economic burden of the local immigrants will decrease. This does, of coarse, mean no more slave labor for local corporations to exploit, more expensive construction costs, and more expensive imported Mexican clothes (have you looked at the Made In tag on that shirt?). Overall, the bottom range wages will go up with less unskilled workforce willing to work for peanuts, but general expenses will go up.
Ultimately, however, as long as it's cheaper to provide goods and services elsewhere, investor conscious CEOs will keep moving those services to the least expensive locations. So while local wages will increase in the short run, available jobs may ultimately decrease. See, the problem isn't the immigrants, it's free trade and multi-national corporations. More than that, the problem is the stock market and it's dependence on not increasing profitability, but increases in the increasing of profitability.
For those that don't understand, I'll fill you in. A company goes public by selling a portion of the company to investors at large (the stock market). The value of the stock is based on the demand for it, which is in turn determined by the risk / reward ratio of the purchase. That is, does the value of the stock increase or decrease, and by how much how quickly?
A company that shows a profit then must either invest the profit in itself (theoretically driving up the value of the stock), or give holders a portion of the profit. If more stock is needed, then it may be split, resulting in a return to the holder of half the value of stock (a dividend).
So as a company is becoming bigger, and more profitable, stock purchases increase, resulting in more available cash, potentially increasing the bottom line, and driving up the value of the stock. The problem is, this upward trend is not infinitely sustainable. Eventually, the profit will stagnate. Now, that isn't the company actually losing money. That isn't even the company showing expenses in excess of income (in the red). That's simply the company not growing at it's previous rate. At this point, the stock can only decrease in value (unless it's split, which can be expensive). This results in a high risk but low reward environment for the value of the stock (high value, as it's grown, but the value could decrease). Investors start liquidating the stock, and the value plummets. Now, this isn't really a problem for a company, as it's already got the capital from the initial investments and subsequent purchases, but it is for the majority stock holders. The "board" then must act to stop the free fall. They must cut costs to increase the profitability of the company. They will inevitably hire a CEO that will destroy the company in order to re-value the stock. By this I mean that they will sell off assets, fire good people, and move local operations to cheaper countries (where the product will likely suffer from quality control lapses and low worker enthusiasm). In the process, however, the profit of the company will skyrocket resulting in a new stock value surge. During this time the smart investors will slowly sell off their shares and find something new. The company will then have a second crash due to lack of any useful assets, and may or may not get re-built by a new CEO. Meanwhile the CEO who destroyed the company will be hired by another board in a similar position after being let go with a huge severance package. This is capitalism at it's more corrupt. Well, almost most corrupt.
This process is fueled by free trade, where the company can simply move operations to less expensive locations rather than investing in local resources. It's largely responsible for the rising economic inequality, and a number of recessions. Just think of the dotcom bust, as a leading example. It's fueled by America's love for gambling (really, the stock market is a form of gambling).
The problem is several-fold. First, fewer jobs in the U.S. and more people looking for them means that, in a free market, wages are suppressed. The same effect, in reverse, is what drives the move. Lots of people in few jobs have already suppressed wages in the new location. Because wages are low, the populous will never have access to education and other tools to get out of poverty, and wages will remain low. If they don't, the company will find somewhere new with low wages to exploit.
We live in a global economy, and this is a global issue. As Americans we take for granted our quality of life. Ask a laborer in a factory in China or working at one of the call centers everyone hates in India, and they'll tell you about their living conditions that will but all but the poorest Americans to shame. They're the lucky ones that have jobs, too. The absurdity, though, is that this is all means by which a few elites get exuberantly wealthy and use that wealth and influence to craft economic policies to their liking.
As American, we can't change the laws in India or China, but we can tariff the shit out of their goods, making it less expensive to make in the U.S. than import (and helping the tax base a lot, too). However, that means that $10 shirt will be $25 and we can't have that...
Monday, June 29, 2015
Government and Marriage
There seem to be a number of mostly republican presidential candidates you claim that government should not define, or in any way be involved with the institution of marriage. OK, sounds good. That means that the following would need to happen:
No more filing joint taxes.
No more tax benefits for married couples.
No more joint property rights for married couples.
No more automatic inheritance when a spouse dies.
Any law currently mentioning the words spouse, married, or marriage must be stricken.
That's fine for me; I'm still single, but I don't think it would go over well with a large number of people. The truth is, the government IS in the marriage business, and has been from the start. If government must be removed, however, I have a compromise:
Any two people may enter into an exclusive contract designating each other life partner. Said Life Partner shall be entitled to all rights and privileges currently afforded a spouse.
That seems like a good compromise. Now, with government out of the equation, marriage must be defined by religion. That's what they're pushing for, at least. So, for a fundamentalist sect of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a number of others, that's one man and several women. I imagine there are religions out there that prescribe marriage to say, a goat, a dog, a space alien, the moon, ghosts, ones-self... That's all fine and good.
No more filing joint taxes.
No more tax benefits for married couples.
No more joint property rights for married couples.
No more automatic inheritance when a spouse dies.
Any law currently mentioning the words spouse, married, or marriage must be stricken.
That's fine for me; I'm still single, but I don't think it would go over well with a large number of people. The truth is, the government IS in the marriage business, and has been from the start. If government must be removed, however, I have a compromise:
Any two people may enter into an exclusive contract designating each other life partner. Said Life Partner shall be entitled to all rights and privileges currently afforded a spouse.
That seems like a good compromise. Now, with government out of the equation, marriage must be defined by religion. That's what they're pushing for, at least. So, for a fundamentalist sect of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and a number of others, that's one man and several women. I imagine there are religions out there that prescribe marriage to say, a goat, a dog, a space alien, the moon, ghosts, ones-self... That's all fine and good.
Tuesday, June 16, 2015
Disneyfication
There are a great many reasons to dislike Disney. Perhaps Walt's antisemitism doesn't sit well with you. Maybe the way female characters have largely been portrayed as helpless, needing a man to rescue them. Maybe it was the way Mickey touched your girlfriend last time you visited a theme park.
All of these are great reasons, and all are perfectly legitimate problems (well, the Mickey part isn't really a Disney problem, but still...). There is one problem, however, that I feel transcends all others. This problem isn't limited to sexual stereotypes or religious intolerance. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of age, sex, gender race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, height, weight, language... This problem is Disneyfication.
What is Disneyfication, and why is is so terrible? First, let's examine the issue of female characters in Disney films, starting near the beginning: Snow White. Snow White is a helpless, gullible girl who is pursued by a jealous, homicidal step mother. She is rescued at first by seven dwarfs who care for her while she does womanly duties like clean, and cook, and talk to animals. Meanwhile the step mother, filled with vanity and vindiction, sends minions to kill her. Apparently women are either naive and dutiful, or wicked. Eventually the step mother succeeds in poisoning the girl, putting her into an eternal slumber, until another man comes along and nearly rapes her back to consciousness (some would say rape, but in the interest of middle ground, I added the nearly). He has thus "rescued" her. The man eventually cleans up the kingdom as well.
This kind of portrayal of women wouldn't be such a great problem, except that the film is marketed primarily to young children (particularly young girls) who role-model themselves after them. Beyond the weak, naive, dependent nature of the characters, most of them are also portrayed as princesses who are tended to. The idea that every girl is a princess has, more recently, become a standard motif. If Princess doesn't get her way, then... Well, I'm sure there are parents reading this that know what happens next.
Young boys, on the flip side of this, are taught to see women as they are portrayed, and to treat them accordingly. They aren't equals, but pretty things to possess. They need rescuing from time to time, but otherwise are good at cleaning, and cooking, and singing to animals! Also, they think they're princesses, so be prepared.
For both sexes this is a big disservice. I could go on about how this engenders gender stereotypes that can cause even greater damage, but I'll save that for another post. For now, think about how such a simple portrayal can negatively affect a child's self-image, goals, and imagined prospects. Why be an astronaut when you can be a princess?
Disneyfication is beyond this one aspect. In short, Disneyfication is the conversion of cultural elements into a candy-coated, stereotyped form, devoid of the original lessons, and corrupted into a pleasing, escapist narrative. That is to say, stories, legends, fables, books, and plays are robbed of their humanity, sprinkled with "fairy dust," (which I can only imagine is powdered hallucinogenic mushroom) and rendered a mockery of the original.
There are numerous examples, and I don't need to mention them all here. Read the original Snow White, Little Mermaid, or even Sleeping Beauty (that I will qualify as full on rape, by the way). None of these have happy endings. People die. People to despicable things. There is a lesson, however dark, in each of them. No, I'm not saying the original versions make up great material for young children, but many of the stories were not written for them. The ones that were were written or told with a lesson in mind, even if dark.
In medieval Europe, there was real danger. Parents had to work to survive (even women, who may not have practiced a trade, labored on chores around the home or the community. Once children could run, they were constantly exposed to these dangers: wild animals, people of poor moral character, elements. Children had to learn early what not to do, and many of these stories were designed to do just that. They INTENDED to frighten them. This was for their own good, until they were old enough to manage these dangers on their own.
Now parents don't want to scare their kids. Now the pedophile who may be lurking near by is one of the greatest threats (not statistically, or sensically, but for lack of better threats...). Other than getting hit by cars (a far greater risk, by the way), and the occasional animal attack (still a greater risk), there isn't all that much for a child to be afraid of. So maybe the old stories should die, replaced by happy ones, right?
The job of parents is not simply to protect their children from harm, but to build in them the skill, knowledge, and confidence to thrive as adults. The problem is, however, not every girl is a princess. Not every boy is a prince. Most of us have to work hard to survive. Life isn't fair, there's often no justice, and no stranger is likely to come to the rescue. Believing these things, ultimately, does a great disservice to our children. They expect things their parents can't afford, and aren't appreciative of what they have. They settle into gender roles and chastise those that don't fit.
If real life could be Disneyfied, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happier. And for an adult looking into that world, it's a great escape from the pain and suffering of real life. But children don't need that escape, and more importantly, need to learn to deal with this real world first. It's like feeding children sugary treats all of the time. Eventually the child is fat, can't stand healthy food, is miserably because of the stress on his body and social ostracism, and is left with no alternative but to continue the cycle that lead to this problem. You can replace sugar with any drug, alcohol, cigarettes, or other vice. Ultimately all of these coping mechanisms serve to reduce the pain of life, a pain that isn't really pain, but rather a dull ache that could never be tolerated.
There is one final note on Disneyfication. If this issue was limited to ruining the lives of other people's kids, or at least avoidable on a personal level, I would not be inclined to deal with it. I am fundamentally libertarian by nature, and am far from inclined to insert my will into everyone's lives. If other parents want to damage their kids, fine. The problem is, this has exceeded the bounds of individual discretion, and is now a matter of legislation. Over the years, we have legislated what children are allowed to see, allowed to know, allowed to do, and allowed to say, all on the basis of a Dinseyfied childhood. Material that is "Adult" (and I'm not talking about porn) is off limits based on age, regardless as to whether the individual is capable of understanding, internalizing, and dealing with the information. There is a societal push to "shield" children from anything that conflicts with the Disneyfied ideal life, to hide the brutal, real truth.
Even looking at how movies are rated, one can see that concepts and ideas are just as prone to rate a film, video, or music as more mature than anything that may actually promote negative behavior (such as violence). The biggest taboo in American culture: nudity. The natural body is considered too mature for children to see, but portrayals of sex or violence are not, so long as the skin exposure is minimal. Does this make any sense to anyone? We're born naked, but even a second of exposed breasts (think Titanic) guarantees a PG-13 (if you're lucky). A single utterance of the work "fuck" guarantees an R. Neither of these are harmful.
On the other hand, a road runner dropping an anvil on a coyote who is in turn trying to kill the road runner is appropriate for children. Really? And if the kid doesn't understand that real people can't just bounce back with a bump on their head after being hit by an anvil? No one sees this as a problem? Well, Snow White has an evil which that wants to eat a girl's heart and poison's her with an apple, so that must be fine.
All of these are great reasons, and all are perfectly legitimate problems (well, the Mickey part isn't really a Disney problem, but still...). There is one problem, however, that I feel transcends all others. This problem isn't limited to sexual stereotypes or religious intolerance. It doesn't discriminate on the basis of age, sex, gender race, religion, sexual orientation, hair color, height, weight, language... This problem is Disneyfication.
What is Disneyfication, and why is is so terrible? First, let's examine the issue of female characters in Disney films, starting near the beginning: Snow White. Snow White is a helpless, gullible girl who is pursued by a jealous, homicidal step mother. She is rescued at first by seven dwarfs who care for her while she does womanly duties like clean, and cook, and talk to animals. Meanwhile the step mother, filled with vanity and vindiction, sends minions to kill her. Apparently women are either naive and dutiful, or wicked. Eventually the step mother succeeds in poisoning the girl, putting her into an eternal slumber, until another man comes along and nearly rapes her back to consciousness (some would say rape, but in the interest of middle ground, I added the nearly). He has thus "rescued" her. The man eventually cleans up the kingdom as well.
This kind of portrayal of women wouldn't be such a great problem, except that the film is marketed primarily to young children (particularly young girls) who role-model themselves after them. Beyond the weak, naive, dependent nature of the characters, most of them are also portrayed as princesses who are tended to. The idea that every girl is a princess has, more recently, become a standard motif. If Princess doesn't get her way, then... Well, I'm sure there are parents reading this that know what happens next.
Young boys, on the flip side of this, are taught to see women as they are portrayed, and to treat them accordingly. They aren't equals, but pretty things to possess. They need rescuing from time to time, but otherwise are good at cleaning, and cooking, and singing to animals! Also, they think they're princesses, so be prepared.
For both sexes this is a big disservice. I could go on about how this engenders gender stereotypes that can cause even greater damage, but I'll save that for another post. For now, think about how such a simple portrayal can negatively affect a child's self-image, goals, and imagined prospects. Why be an astronaut when you can be a princess?
Disneyfication is beyond this one aspect. In short, Disneyfication is the conversion of cultural elements into a candy-coated, stereotyped form, devoid of the original lessons, and corrupted into a pleasing, escapist narrative. That is to say, stories, legends, fables, books, and plays are robbed of their humanity, sprinkled with "fairy dust," (which I can only imagine is powdered hallucinogenic mushroom) and rendered a mockery of the original.
There are numerous examples, and I don't need to mention them all here. Read the original Snow White, Little Mermaid, or even Sleeping Beauty (that I will qualify as full on rape, by the way). None of these have happy endings. People die. People to despicable things. There is a lesson, however dark, in each of them. No, I'm not saying the original versions make up great material for young children, but many of the stories were not written for them. The ones that were were written or told with a lesson in mind, even if dark.
In medieval Europe, there was real danger. Parents had to work to survive (even women, who may not have practiced a trade, labored on chores around the home or the community. Once children could run, they were constantly exposed to these dangers: wild animals, people of poor moral character, elements. Children had to learn early what not to do, and many of these stories were designed to do just that. They INTENDED to frighten them. This was for their own good, until they were old enough to manage these dangers on their own.
Now parents don't want to scare their kids. Now the pedophile who may be lurking near by is one of the greatest threats (not statistically, or sensically, but for lack of better threats...). Other than getting hit by cars (a far greater risk, by the way), and the occasional animal attack (still a greater risk), there isn't all that much for a child to be afraid of. So maybe the old stories should die, replaced by happy ones, right?
The job of parents is not simply to protect their children from harm, but to build in them the skill, knowledge, and confidence to thrive as adults. The problem is, however, not every girl is a princess. Not every boy is a prince. Most of us have to work hard to survive. Life isn't fair, there's often no justice, and no stranger is likely to come to the rescue. Believing these things, ultimately, does a great disservice to our children. They expect things their parents can't afford, and aren't appreciative of what they have. They settle into gender roles and chastise those that don't fit.
If real life could be Disneyfied, I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be happier. And for an adult looking into that world, it's a great escape from the pain and suffering of real life. But children don't need that escape, and more importantly, need to learn to deal with this real world first. It's like feeding children sugary treats all of the time. Eventually the child is fat, can't stand healthy food, is miserably because of the stress on his body and social ostracism, and is left with no alternative but to continue the cycle that lead to this problem. You can replace sugar with any drug, alcohol, cigarettes, or other vice. Ultimately all of these coping mechanisms serve to reduce the pain of life, a pain that isn't really pain, but rather a dull ache that could never be tolerated.
There is one final note on Disneyfication. If this issue was limited to ruining the lives of other people's kids, or at least avoidable on a personal level, I would not be inclined to deal with it. I am fundamentally libertarian by nature, and am far from inclined to insert my will into everyone's lives. If other parents want to damage their kids, fine. The problem is, this has exceeded the bounds of individual discretion, and is now a matter of legislation. Over the years, we have legislated what children are allowed to see, allowed to know, allowed to do, and allowed to say, all on the basis of a Dinseyfied childhood. Material that is "Adult" (and I'm not talking about porn) is off limits based on age, regardless as to whether the individual is capable of understanding, internalizing, and dealing with the information. There is a societal push to "shield" children from anything that conflicts with the Disneyfied ideal life, to hide the brutal, real truth.
Even looking at how movies are rated, one can see that concepts and ideas are just as prone to rate a film, video, or music as more mature than anything that may actually promote negative behavior (such as violence). The biggest taboo in American culture: nudity. The natural body is considered too mature for children to see, but portrayals of sex or violence are not, so long as the skin exposure is minimal. Does this make any sense to anyone? We're born naked, but even a second of exposed breasts (think Titanic) guarantees a PG-13 (if you're lucky). A single utterance of the work "fuck" guarantees an R. Neither of these are harmful.
On the other hand, a road runner dropping an anvil on a coyote who is in turn trying to kill the road runner is appropriate for children. Really? And if the kid doesn't understand that real people can't just bounce back with a bump on their head after being hit by an anvil? No one sees this as a problem? Well, Snow White has an evil which that wants to eat a girl's heart and poison's her with an apple, so that must be fine.
Monday, April 6, 2015
Primal Pt. 2
Here's something to think about. IQ roughly resembles a bell curve, with 100 as the peak (the average). The statistical deviation from mentally handicapped to average is the same as average to moderately high (not even genius). While IQ alone isn't a great indicator of functional intelligence, the general principal remains consistent.
We generally consider ourselves as being more intelligent than the animals around us. But what makes us intelligent? How do you define what makes us smarter than the animals around us? That we can use tools? Numerous animals, including chimps, use tools. That we can communicate? Most animals communicate to some degree, and without understanding the "language" they use, it is arrogant to suppose they do not communicate concepts or ideas as we do (indeed, the chimps again, seem to do so).
Something that consistently categorizes a degree of intelligence is train-ability. An animal that is too low in intelligence can't be trained, and those high in intelligence may learn obey when it is convenient, but will betray this training when it no longer suits their interests. Only in the middle is an animal truly trainable
Humans, despite our so-called intelligence, fit the very same mold. A vast majority of people believe with absolute certainty everything they were taught to be true. If a parent told them it was true, or a trusted teacher, or preacher, then it must be true (without doubt). Santa Clause is a good example of this. As the human grows older (and more intelligent), it will gradually question these truths. A truly intelligent person will dismiss their earlier training in favor of their new experiences.
As small children, we are learning about the world. We examine with our senses, test by interaction, and use the experience to create a framework by which we understand everything that happens to us. This framework affects our very thoughts, telling us how to interpret our very feelings and impulses, and how to control them. This framework is not something simple to shake, even a little. Anything that casts doubt on it can be perceived as a threat, causing a defensive reaction.
The more intelligent the individual, the more likely they are to doubt their framework, the more likely they are to constantly question their beliefs, the less likely the reaction will be defensive. Intelligent individuals deal in reason and argument, not in personal attacks or emotional provocations. This, however, is far from the norm for humans in general. Most people are so dependent on this framework that even the slightest contradiction to is (say, evolution) is a serious threat to their psyche, and they react hastily to it. The non-believer isn't a direct threat to them, but the idea that someone doesn't believe the same way causes them to doubt, at some level, their convictions, and the terror of losing those convictions, of having been wrong, of having their whole world torn down, provokes the kind of aggressive, defensive (and in mass, offensive) posturing that one would normally find from an animal trapped in a corner.
People fight and die to preserve this framework, to be "right." They kill those who are different from them, because they are afraid, not of the people themselves, but what they represent: doubt. Even more dangerous, however, are those behind them, egging them on. Many of the instigators of violence don't believe what they preach. In fact, for them the beliefs of the crowd are nothing more than a tool, a means of control and manipulation, of power. To them the non-believer isn't a threat to their psyche, it's a real threat to their power, for with belief so goes their power. Even the animal in the corner will desist after a while, when it realizes the threat is subsided and it can escape. The constant anger and violence is not a crowd reaction, but spurred by men who use it to achieve their own ends.
The concept relayed in Christianity of the sheep and the shepherd is prevalent in this relationship. Someone must watch over the sheep and protect them. The extension of this concept has lead to the label "sheeple," referring to people who blindly follow the lead of another. The problem is, the shepherd isn't in this to keep the sheep safe. Yes, ultimately his ends are met better if the sheep are safe from predators, but when he sells the sheep for slaughter, it is not their interests he has in mind. The very same people that are versed in this sheep analogy also recall that in Judaism, the lamb is a SACRIFICIAL animal. All good families sacrificed lamb to God at Passover. Good job sheeple, I guess ultimately you get what you deserve.
I can't abide humans behaving as sheep. We have the capacity to question, to reason, to explore and experience, and to see the world through our own eyes. Why let ourselves be deceived and manipulated for someone else's benefit? It is easier to accept someone else's explanation rather than find your own, but in the end it is your life you life, not theirs, and your life you surrender if you follow blindly into the abyss.
People fight and die to preserve this framework, to be "right." They kill those who are different from them, because they are afraid, not of the people themselves, but what they represent: doubt. Even more dangerous, however, are those behind them, egging them on. Many of the instigators of violence don't believe what they preach. In fact, for them the beliefs of the crowd are nothing more than a tool, a means of control and manipulation, of power. To them the non-believer isn't a threat to their psyche, it's a real threat to their power, for with belief so goes their power. Even the animal in the corner will desist after a while, when it realizes the threat is subsided and it can escape. The constant anger and violence is not a crowd reaction, but spurred by men who use it to achieve their own ends.
The concept relayed in Christianity of the sheep and the shepherd is prevalent in this relationship. Someone must watch over the sheep and protect them. The extension of this concept has lead to the label "sheeple," referring to people who blindly follow the lead of another. The problem is, the shepherd isn't in this to keep the sheep safe. Yes, ultimately his ends are met better if the sheep are safe from predators, but when he sells the sheep for slaughter, it is not their interests he has in mind. The very same people that are versed in this sheep analogy also recall that in Judaism, the lamb is a SACRIFICIAL animal. All good families sacrificed lamb to God at Passover. Good job sheeple, I guess ultimately you get what you deserve.
I can't abide humans behaving as sheep. We have the capacity to question, to reason, to explore and experience, and to see the world through our own eyes. Why let ourselves be deceived and manipulated for someone else's benefit? It is easier to accept someone else's explanation rather than find your own, but in the end it is your life you life, not theirs, and your life you surrender if you follow blindly into the abyss.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Religion Part 1
Being Easter and all, and viewing the endless number of posts from church services, candy, and Jesus, I figured this would be a good day to discuss religion. Like all of my posts, this will be a fairly long one, and must start at the beginning... of something. Should we start at the beginning of religion? Or the beginning of me? Both?
OK, so if you know about the beginning of religion already, skip this. In fact, unless you like reading snippets from my auto-biography, or need some clarification on why I got where I am today, you can stop here and pick up with Part 2. Otherwise, here's the hurried version of things: Man faces the world and tries to figure it out, but can't. Other men don't care, but are sick of running around hunting, so they come up with an idea: blame it all on a supernatural force. Since people are stupid, make said supernatural force look human (and/or animal). Then they claim to speak to supernatural force, giving them power over the people. Thus, all-in-one, government and religion are born. As tribes fight and merge, more and more gods and beings are conflated, spread, and converted. As humans spread out, they take these gods with them. That's the gist of things.
Now, for me, I was raised Christian (in the Baptist-Presbyterian tradition). The bed time stories my mother read me were Christian themed. I went to pre-school, kindergarten, and vacation bible school a few years at a nearby baptist church. I also went to Sunday School there for several years before transferring to my family's Presbyterian church. I learned all of the stories, was bombarded with the conflicting messages, and learned.
I have an early memory from about three at Christmas, when I got some toy riding train and some other presents, My father told me Santa had brought them, and I refuted that Santa doesn't exist. He couldn't be responsible: the world's too big and nothing moves that fast. From an early age I had come to see the world objectively, and knew when to call bullshit.
That's about my thought process some years later sitting in Sunday School being read the story of Noah. We (those raised Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) grow up hearing that ALL animals on earth that we see were horded aboard a giant boat (at least two of each). Even at an early age I know better than to believe this. There are billions of species of animals across multiple continents. If that story was bullshit, then what of the others? And the girl, probably sixteen, reading us this story. She seemed to believe it. And as I watched her, I came to understand how empty her mind was. I felt sorry for her. That was the beginning of the end for me.
By the next summer, I refused to go. I had had it with the brainwashing and lies. I was sick of being surrounded by those who were too stupid to see this as non-sense. I had better things to do with my weekends. As my father never went to church, I would simply stay home with him. For the next ten years or so, when asked, I would call myself an atheist.
In elementary school I was mostly a loaner. I spent recess talking to one or two friends I had, and we'd walk and talk about sci-fi movies, or building things. By forth grade, though, I was starting to get a following. They weren't really my friends, but rather people interested in the more philosophical, political, or scientific topics we had migrated to. One day, in the middle of a discussion, another loaner approached the group. I didn't know him well, but knew of him. I was not, however, about to reject him from our group of social outcasts. He asked a simple question of me: "Do you know what the meaning of life is?" I pondered this for about three seconds and answered straightly, "To grow and reproduce." I could still stand behind that answer, as it is bulletproof. If life doesn't grow and reproduce, then there won't be life long. The boy, however, had another answer: "To serve God." I spent the rest of recess debating that point, hoping I could get through to him. It didn't work. He stayed with us, though, our little group of outcasts.
It turned out that my mother knew him. His parents had a local business growing and selling plants, and his mother was active in the church I had been in for many years. I would have known him back then, but I don't remember most of the kids, just some of the teachers, and swinging alone at recess. I decided to invite the boy to my birthday party in hopes to broaden his mind. My parents rented a projector and screen so we could watch movies, and I rented a few. After the first movie (a Star Trek, but I don't remember which), and after my mother retired to her room, I put Species on. He stayed in until the first nudity. Shocked, he retreated to the kitchen. I followed, asking what was wrong. He responded obstinately that he couldn't watch that. I told him his parents won't know, but he refused. I pitied him, but with such conditioning, I couldn't fix him (or rather, help him fix himself as I managed to do). That night was the last time I interacted with him.
A year later and it was a new school, new friends, and a new perspective. I found another sheltered boy to work on, and a intellectual, though unstable, colleague. The further I went down the road of pure skepticism, the better my grades, and the clearer my thought. Three things happened, however, to derail my perspective.
First of all, I've always had heightened senses. I'm more sensitive to light, sound, and even touch than any boys I know. That was a large part of my social withdrawal, feeling the pain physically and emotionally far more intensely than my friends. Whether there's a psychic element to it, or simply good observation, I've always been able to tell if someone was lying, or at least believed what they said. I never believed in magic, or supernatural, but I did believe in deception. I understood that that was all "magic" was. One day my father, frustrated by my lack of belief, took me into the next room and made a pencil spin, seemingly with his mind. Seeing no other way he could have done it, I started to explore psychic phenomena. I learned a form of hypnotism, to read cards, to be deeply emphatic. While there are hundreds of stories from this time of my life, they will have to wait.
Second, puberty is a bitch. My already tentative hold on emotional stability became a desperate grasp, slipping with each traumatic event. Nearing psychosis exploring telepathy, sensing a sinister presence, and desperately seeking escape, I started to retreat to the absolutism of my early years. I started praying, and it seemed to help.
Then I fell in love. She was perfect, in every way I could think of, but I was a fat little social outcast. Why would she even consider going out with me? I fell in love over the coarse of a year, and when she was in my classes again the following year, I swore I'd work up the courage to ask her. That didn't happen. So, between my seventh and eighth grade years, laying in bed one night, I prayed: "God, if you give me another chance, if she's on my team next year, I'll take the worst teacher, the hardest classes you can give me." She was on my team the next year (a group of students and teachers who work together on curriculum). I also had the worst teacher in the school, who was an English teacher (and spelling Nazi) teaching Science. I still can't spell.
That year was a pinnacle one for me in many ways. I could FEEL God. I could talk to him (two-way conversations). I could feel the storm, and even direct lightning in my interest (like killing power to the school). I still couldn't get the courage to ask the girl out, but I was a little distracted. At the end of the year a few things happened that brought my life spiraling down. I was investigated by the principle for trying to petition to get the teacher fired, I couldn't continue in Orchestra because I couldn't learn vibrato (do to some posturing and size issues), and most significantly, my baby bird I was weening died. An emotional train wreck, I wanted to but it all behind me. The telepathy, telekinetic, God, all of it. I was done with the psychosis.
High school started with putting it all behind me. Only a couple of people knew me, and not well. The girl had gone to a different school, and I to a magnet school far away from home. I made new friends, fell in love again, slowly, and thought this new start was working out. By my second year things were getting strange again. It all started with an upper-class boy who felt... different. As I spoke to him, I learned of his history, not so different from my own, except where I simply walked away, his ended with a suicide attempt. But we looked at each other and almost simultaneously said something strange is going on about five seconds before the school went into lock-down. I never doubted my abilities, but like a wizard seeing the dark potential of his craft and fearful he may be drawn into them, I wanted out, and that meant ignoring them.
As my new love started playing games with me, and my feelings became stranger, I started leaning on my skills more and more. I never reached the point I had a couple of years earlier, but I was more focused now, ready to fight. I think that the very thing I turned to to help her made her fear me more, and turned her away. It didn't help that I ignored the voice in my head that stated repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms, to stop perusing her.
Despite going to different schools, and not living particularly close to each other, the girl from middle school kept showing up at strangely coincidental times. I was helping recruit from my middle school my freshman year, and she was skipping school to help move. We happened to go to the same place to eat (and this "we" is actually a small group, but still). She went into Theatre, as did I, and we shared a bus to the Theatre honor society's state gathering. The last time I saw her, she saw me in a hallway at the district UIL One Act Play competition (the first and only time I went).
I left High School to go to UT, where, once again, I didn't know all that many people. A few of us from my school went, but none that I was particularly close to. And, once again, I settled against using my abilities. This time it wasn't to forsake them so much as to balance my emotional state, which tended to become exaggerated severely. Both of the girls had gone to different schools, and I had no expectations of seeing either of them again. New school, new city, new life. It did, however, all add up to one important thing...
Continues on Part 2.
OK, so if you know about the beginning of religion already, skip this. In fact, unless you like reading snippets from my auto-biography, or need some clarification on why I got where I am today, you can stop here and pick up with Part 2. Otherwise, here's the hurried version of things: Man faces the world and tries to figure it out, but can't. Other men don't care, but are sick of running around hunting, so they come up with an idea: blame it all on a supernatural force. Since people are stupid, make said supernatural force look human (and/or animal). Then they claim to speak to supernatural force, giving them power over the people. Thus, all-in-one, government and religion are born. As tribes fight and merge, more and more gods and beings are conflated, spread, and converted. As humans spread out, they take these gods with them. That's the gist of things.
Now, for me, I was raised Christian (in the Baptist-Presbyterian tradition). The bed time stories my mother read me were Christian themed. I went to pre-school, kindergarten, and vacation bible school a few years at a nearby baptist church. I also went to Sunday School there for several years before transferring to my family's Presbyterian church. I learned all of the stories, was bombarded with the conflicting messages, and learned.
I have an early memory from about three at Christmas, when I got some toy riding train and some other presents, My father told me Santa had brought them, and I refuted that Santa doesn't exist. He couldn't be responsible: the world's too big and nothing moves that fast. From an early age I had come to see the world objectively, and knew when to call bullshit.
That's about my thought process some years later sitting in Sunday School being read the story of Noah. We (those raised Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) grow up hearing that ALL animals on earth that we see were horded aboard a giant boat (at least two of each). Even at an early age I know better than to believe this. There are billions of species of animals across multiple continents. If that story was bullshit, then what of the others? And the girl, probably sixteen, reading us this story. She seemed to believe it. And as I watched her, I came to understand how empty her mind was. I felt sorry for her. That was the beginning of the end for me.
By the next summer, I refused to go. I had had it with the brainwashing and lies. I was sick of being surrounded by those who were too stupid to see this as non-sense. I had better things to do with my weekends. As my father never went to church, I would simply stay home with him. For the next ten years or so, when asked, I would call myself an atheist.
In elementary school I was mostly a loaner. I spent recess talking to one or two friends I had, and we'd walk and talk about sci-fi movies, or building things. By forth grade, though, I was starting to get a following. They weren't really my friends, but rather people interested in the more philosophical, political, or scientific topics we had migrated to. One day, in the middle of a discussion, another loaner approached the group. I didn't know him well, but knew of him. I was not, however, about to reject him from our group of social outcasts. He asked a simple question of me: "Do you know what the meaning of life is?" I pondered this for about three seconds and answered straightly, "To grow and reproduce." I could still stand behind that answer, as it is bulletproof. If life doesn't grow and reproduce, then there won't be life long. The boy, however, had another answer: "To serve God." I spent the rest of recess debating that point, hoping I could get through to him. It didn't work. He stayed with us, though, our little group of outcasts.
It turned out that my mother knew him. His parents had a local business growing and selling plants, and his mother was active in the church I had been in for many years. I would have known him back then, but I don't remember most of the kids, just some of the teachers, and swinging alone at recess. I decided to invite the boy to my birthday party in hopes to broaden his mind. My parents rented a projector and screen so we could watch movies, and I rented a few. After the first movie (a Star Trek, but I don't remember which), and after my mother retired to her room, I put Species on. He stayed in until the first nudity. Shocked, he retreated to the kitchen. I followed, asking what was wrong. He responded obstinately that he couldn't watch that. I told him his parents won't know, but he refused. I pitied him, but with such conditioning, I couldn't fix him (or rather, help him fix himself as I managed to do). That night was the last time I interacted with him.
A year later and it was a new school, new friends, and a new perspective. I found another sheltered boy to work on, and a intellectual, though unstable, colleague. The further I went down the road of pure skepticism, the better my grades, and the clearer my thought. Three things happened, however, to derail my perspective.
First of all, I've always had heightened senses. I'm more sensitive to light, sound, and even touch than any boys I know. That was a large part of my social withdrawal, feeling the pain physically and emotionally far more intensely than my friends. Whether there's a psychic element to it, or simply good observation, I've always been able to tell if someone was lying, or at least believed what they said. I never believed in magic, or supernatural, but I did believe in deception. I understood that that was all "magic" was. One day my father, frustrated by my lack of belief, took me into the next room and made a pencil spin, seemingly with his mind. Seeing no other way he could have done it, I started to explore psychic phenomena. I learned a form of hypnotism, to read cards, to be deeply emphatic. While there are hundreds of stories from this time of my life, they will have to wait.
Second, puberty is a bitch. My already tentative hold on emotional stability became a desperate grasp, slipping with each traumatic event. Nearing psychosis exploring telepathy, sensing a sinister presence, and desperately seeking escape, I started to retreat to the absolutism of my early years. I started praying, and it seemed to help.
Then I fell in love. She was perfect, in every way I could think of, but I was a fat little social outcast. Why would she even consider going out with me? I fell in love over the coarse of a year, and when she was in my classes again the following year, I swore I'd work up the courage to ask her. That didn't happen. So, between my seventh and eighth grade years, laying in bed one night, I prayed: "God, if you give me another chance, if she's on my team next year, I'll take the worst teacher, the hardest classes you can give me." She was on my team the next year (a group of students and teachers who work together on curriculum). I also had the worst teacher in the school, who was an English teacher (and spelling Nazi) teaching Science. I still can't spell.
That year was a pinnacle one for me in many ways. I could FEEL God. I could talk to him (two-way conversations). I could feel the storm, and even direct lightning in my interest (like killing power to the school). I still couldn't get the courage to ask the girl out, but I was a little distracted. At the end of the year a few things happened that brought my life spiraling down. I was investigated by the principle for trying to petition to get the teacher fired, I couldn't continue in Orchestra because I couldn't learn vibrato (do to some posturing and size issues), and most significantly, my baby bird I was weening died. An emotional train wreck, I wanted to but it all behind me. The telepathy, telekinetic, God, all of it. I was done with the psychosis.
High school started with putting it all behind me. Only a couple of people knew me, and not well. The girl had gone to a different school, and I to a magnet school far away from home. I made new friends, fell in love again, slowly, and thought this new start was working out. By my second year things were getting strange again. It all started with an upper-class boy who felt... different. As I spoke to him, I learned of his history, not so different from my own, except where I simply walked away, his ended with a suicide attempt. But we looked at each other and almost simultaneously said something strange is going on about five seconds before the school went into lock-down. I never doubted my abilities, but like a wizard seeing the dark potential of his craft and fearful he may be drawn into them, I wanted out, and that meant ignoring them.
As my new love started playing games with me, and my feelings became stranger, I started leaning on my skills more and more. I never reached the point I had a couple of years earlier, but I was more focused now, ready to fight. I think that the very thing I turned to to help her made her fear me more, and turned her away. It didn't help that I ignored the voice in my head that stated repeatedly, and in no uncertain terms, to stop perusing her.
Despite going to different schools, and not living particularly close to each other, the girl from middle school kept showing up at strangely coincidental times. I was helping recruit from my middle school my freshman year, and she was skipping school to help move. We happened to go to the same place to eat (and this "we" is actually a small group, but still). She went into Theatre, as did I, and we shared a bus to the Theatre honor society's state gathering. The last time I saw her, she saw me in a hallway at the district UIL One Act Play competition (the first and only time I went).
I left High School to go to UT, where, once again, I didn't know all that many people. A few of us from my school went, but none that I was particularly close to. And, once again, I settled against using my abilities. This time it wasn't to forsake them so much as to balance my emotional state, which tended to become exaggerated severely. Both of the girls had gone to different schools, and I had no expectations of seeing either of them again. New school, new city, new life. It did, however, all add up to one important thing...
Continues on Part 2.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)