The Two Front War on Women

Liberals and conservatives both seem to have some desperate need to place women into some narrowly defined box of what it means to be a woman. Conservatives speak of the traditional woman, liberals the liberated woman, what does that mean, who sets the definition of what that is? Is traditional defined by marriage and children or is it defined by what her ideology is and how she lives her life, can you be a traditional woman and not marry? There seems to be this prevalent attitude that a woman is somehow flawed if she fails to take the path society has laid out for her. If both conservatives and liberals believe in the individual and individual choice, why not let her decide what path is best suited for her?  

Marriage is not for everyone, raising a family is not for everyone, being single is not for everyone and why isn’t that okay? If you are a woman of a certain age and are childless you are judged. If you are a single mother (for whatever reason) you are judged. If you are a working mother you are judged, if you aren’t working you are judged. One size does not fit all and no, we don’t all want the same thing, both sides should celebrate that not attack it. We claim that we celebrate the individual and individual liberty but we attack those who choose a path we find distasteful or are unfamiliar with.  

While the numbers vary according to the source; on average 40-50% of marriages end in divorce, 60-67% of second marriages end in divorce and 73-74% third marriages do. Many more divorces are occurring with those over the age of 50; sociologists say the rate has doubled since the 1990’s and 66% of those divorces are initiated by women, one would have to wonder why?

AARP did a survey of dying people and asked what their biggest regrets were; the number one regret was not having the courage to live a life true to myself. That pretty much says it all. 

We are human beings before we are women and there is not a one size fits all.  

A Random Thought

If you have ever found yourself wondering how things in the world seem to get so off course. Let’s start with this…The Hegelian Dialectic; bringing about change in three parts…

Thesis-create the problem

Antithesis-Generate opposition (fear, panic, hysteria)

Synthesis- Solution to the problem created in step 1

Certainly real problems come our way…but lately it seems as though the solutions to the problem border on insanity. One could insert almost any crisis to test this theory. Global warming as an example; the motivation may be money, power or some twisted idea about social justice. The elite would like the people to go in a certain direction, but no one rational person would go in that direction,(create a world with higher and higher energy costs, fail to create jobs, etc.)  so we must create a problem. Global warming is the problem and  unless we return to the dark ages and stop using fossil fuels the polar bears will die and so will we.  Fear and panic must be injected into the daily conversation so that people begin to believe it. The storms will become more and more severe; we will run out of food….then steps in the government….with the solution….more regulations…bigger government. Less freedom for the people and fewer choices and the choices we have will all cost more. Remember…never let a crisis go to waste.

An Essay

The Search for Self

In Buddhism it seems the concept of “self” is similar to that of “soul” in Christianity. Christians live out their lives on Earth so that their soul may live on for eternity. The Buddha believes that nothing is permanent in as much as things are constantly in flux. Also, there is the question of how we perceive things and if our perception is or can ever be accurate. To a great degree we are a product of our environment so we interpret things and see things based on the biases and beliefs’ with which we were raised.  Taking that into consideration it would stand to reason that our perception is perhaps skewed and not entirely rooted in truth.

Attempting to conceptualize the existence of “self” would be reliant upon the perception of what it means to exist. Human beings feel pain, happiness and many other sensations that are physical as well as emotional. So we know that at least in some sense we do indeed exist. The Buddha believed that everything is connected and to a certain degree we are all just a part of something else and reliant upon the grand idea of something greater than “self”. When one of us ceases to exist the world carries on as it has so nothing depends upon the existence of a self.

Buddhism, as with many religions or philosophies is a way of looking at the world and a set of beliefs that guide us as to how we should live our lives. The only way for any religion to work is for everyone to accept the fact that there is only one path to nirvana, or one path for salvation and for that to be true, the idea of an individual must be rejected.

In all societies rules must be established so that people may live together peacefully. One person’s well-being cannot be more important than someone else’s. Belonging to a group, any group requires a certain amount of rejecting the “self” so that everyone’s needs are taken into consideration. Society would break down if it was “every man for himself” so to speak because each person would only be thinking of their own needs at the expense of others.  As with most things that require faith, it is impossible to prove or disprove whether or not they are true. Science can prove when the Earth was formed with a certain degree of certainty but it cannot prove there is no God. I can reject the power of prayer but there is no way for me to prove it works or that it doesn’t. The Buddha can reject the idea of “self” in the context of Buddhism but that doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have a “soul”, it is undeterminable.

The idea of “self” to me cannot be rejected, yet I do concur our perception of self is misguided. I am an individual but I am also a part of the universe and everything that encompasses, the trick is in convincing everyone else of that. Christianity instills the belief that humans have dominion over everything else, so it breeds this notion that we, the “individual” are the most important thing.  My actions or inactions not only impact me, they also impact others, in ways I may or may not be aware of.

The path to anything, including nirvana requires many things and there is no one way to get there. Introspection is the first step to any type of discovery and the reconciliation of the self and the whole. I am no more important and am no less important than what is around me. A balance needs to exist in everything, when things are out of balance it doesn’t work. That balance is true within the context of the self as well. Believing that “ego” is part of the “self”, it is a delicate balance that keeps that in check. Too much ego and I go about life thinking my needs are more important than those of others, too little ego and the chances of me being exploited or taken advantage of increase.

It may seem as though this paper rambles a bit, probably because it does. When I realized this I began to panic and frantically began editing and trying to salvage what I had so that I would not have to start over with a new position. Then I stepped back and began thinking about the subject matter, the existence of self, or not as the case may be and I made a decision to leave the paper as it was not because I thought the paper had such merit but because in some ways the paper illustrated a process; a process of “self” discovery. The “self” changes, evolves and we are not the same person as we were just a day ago and I am not the same person I was when I began this paper, perhaps that is the beginning.  

Utopia

Visions of nowhere…….or you can’t get there from here…..

Utopia is indefinable yet it’s an idea that simply won’t die. The propagandists out there (and you know who you are)   would have us all believe that by making everyone the same (however they intend to do that, I guess by making us gender neutral, financially neutral and mentally neutral) everyone will be happy.

Really what that means is they would force their idea of happiness on the rest of us. In their perverted world making everyone equally miserable solves all of the world’s problems.

The flaw in that theory is of course that they are not capable of experiencing happiness on any level so then we would all be emotionally neutral just like them, surviving in the well of darkness.
 
Darkness is implacable, be careful what you wish for. 
 
How do you define Utopia?

Theatre of the Absurd

“A politician divides mankind into two classes, tools and enemies.” Friedrich Nietzsche

Rehearsal is ongoing, the stage is set and the actors are in place, or more accurately, the politicians are in place. In place to perform their hollow acts of political theatre to keep the fiction alive that they have a clue as to what they are doing. 

Theatre of the Absurd is exactly what it sounds like, people performing on stage with no point, no plot and no logic. Sounds a lot like what’s going on in Washington these days. We are not being led by competent leaders but by corporate power with an insatiable appetite for power and an unquenchable thirst for the chaos they bring about with their apocalyptic visions. Absurd drama subverts logic, politicians defy it. There is a sense of primeval anguish to the meaningless exchanges that have become nothing more than a vehicle to legitimize their inaction and disguise their incompetence. 

Politics has been reduced to a mere sport for the celebrity zombies rather than a forum for citizens that are engaged. The line between propaganda and reason is blurred as the media produces and nurtures a culture of stupidity with diversionary spectacles of entertainment sports, reality television as we are mesmerized by the empty lure of celebrity. Political amnesia works its way through our sycophantic culture and we find ourselves in a celebrity induced stupor rather than focusing in on the dangers of policies that rob us of any real political power. 

Politics isn't something to think about only during elections; it’s something to think about every day because it affects our lives every day.   Waiting for Godot is an absurdest play that essentially tries to convince us that life is meaningless and that things are determined by chance. 

Throughout the play the characters sit and wait in vain for someone who is not coming, it’s time to get off  the bench and let Washington know the reviews are in, the waiting is over and that we need a new cast, one that knows how to act.