Mommy wars..... It really does take a village...

Okay. Logical question: Why is a woman who has never had children sticking her nose into a question like this?

Well, I'm sticking my nose in because I live on the same planet, I am interested in the lives of women and I'm interested in culture. And I care about children.

That established.... :)

I read an exchange this morning, directed by a few different blogs I've read so far, and was startled by the anger, the judgment and the snarkiness. It was a cat fight. It's not the first cat fight I've read on this particular topic. A few things came to mind as I read it. While the exchange addressed one of the symptoms of a greater disease, I wanted to take a look at what I see as the larger, more global, issue.

My understanding of feminism is that it is supposed to allow women choices we didn't have in the past. Somewhere along the line, there are those who took that to mean that we have the right to make choices, but only choices that are approved by other women.

So it was a switch from one set of no choices to another set of no choices.

I have my own opinions about child raising, even though I chose to not raise children myself. From a strictly social point of view, I prefer the idea of women staying home with their children. I'm a rather typical social conservative in that regard.

At the same time, I've lived long enough to know that life is often complex and messy. Not all women have the choice to stay home, even though they might prefer it.

And there are some who don't prefer to stay home and make decisions accordingly.

In a culture where the group dynamic is primarily individualistic, women who make the latter choice are at a disadvantage. Rather than being able to depend on their community, they are often alone, having to balance choices that satisfy both their own desires and the best interests of their children.

Others don't have a choice at all. They can't stay home. Economics being the usual reason. Welfare doesn't pay enough to make that a viable option for those women and it often won't award based simply because a woman wants to raise her children herself.

Yesterday during a quick trip to Target, I saw this for myself. A young woman, probably no older than 20, sat in the food court next to her child, police present. She was wearing the Target uniform. She didn't have anyone to take care of her child and she had to work. She left the little girl in the food court with a cheeseburger and a coloring book.

I overheard enough of the conversation with the police to know that her unpardonable crime of being poor will cause her problems in the future, perhaps even the loss of her child. There were comments made about Child Protective Services and Target's obligation to call the police, having seen the child alone.

These are the realities, the day-to-day life of many mothers. It's not about "choice". It's about necessity.

The mountain of this entire argument is much larger than the molehills so many have discussed over the past 30 years. The truth is that there is often no village. There are individuals. There are individuals with children. And a culture that doesn't support them or value them. Personal desires are the pinnacle of the meaning of life. Personal fulfillment comes before family obligations. Extended families, the possibility of leaving children with Grandma, are nearly a thing of the past. Once living in small communities, extended families and friends are now spread across miles. Neighborhoods are no longer small communities. They are made up of strangers who happen to live near each other.

When it comes to having the interests of children as a priority, it seems to me that this needs to change. Sometimes choices are hard. Sometimes we don't always get to have everything we want. Sometimes we might have to stay put when we don't want to stay put. Sometimes we have to consider the well-being of the community before our personal dreams.

"It takes a village" has become a nice catchphrase, something to be said to express a warm fuzzy feeling, but I wonder how many actually examine the implications of that and the changes that would be necessary to create it. More importantly, how many would be willing to actualize those changes?

~*

Going to people where they are....

Okay. It's time to get back to normal around here and get back to our roundtables.

During the weekend, I had quite a discussion with someone, trying to get a point across that she was not willing to hear.

We have to go to people where they are, not where we want them to be.

Use of language is a critical issue. The purpose of talking is not to say something. It is to be understood.

The person involved in the discussion was from a Yahoo group we participate on. The focus of the group is Buddhism.

You'd think there would be some compassion floating around there, right?

Well, there is ~ typically.

But since it would seem Mercury has been retrograde or there is some other weird configuration of the planets over the past two weeks or so, the group erupted into flames.

And it was unfortunately caused by another Thaiphile. (I am reluctant to include myself in that category. I am culturally Thai. Period.. but for these purposes, I'll run with it.)

She began a full-frontal attack on western culture, including rather silly misspellings of American terms to appear disdainful. Kulture. Amerikkka. You know.

The drill. Some people never grew out of the 60s.

Finally, late night on Saturday, I asked her to stop. I said, "You are not serving Thai culture, which you claim to value, well and you are not serving yourself. You are alienating people. Do you want to be heard or not?"

She wrote back, telling me that she had a right to say whatever she pleased and that if that's how she feels, it's good enough. (This in and of itself shows her limited understanding of Thai culture in which one is not permitted to say whatever she chooses, simply because she feels it.)

My response was that she may be right in some of the issues she raised but probably won't be heard. Even I felt assaulted by her wording. And, yes, she has the right to say anything she chooses. She also has an obligation to accept the consequences with grace and dignity. That is what Thai culture demands. My opinion is that if you claim it, live it.

The consequences in this case are that she was put on moderation by the group owner.

And truthfully, even I was put off and hurt by her use of language, her demeanor and her presentation ~ and I'm more tolerant than the average person. I can usually see beyond use of language to the pain or anger someone is expressing and address it from that level. But hers was vitriolic and left me feeling like I had ugly, icky green-pea slime all over me. I wanted to take a shower!

By Sunday night, every member of the group had a backchannel message from her, stating her case again, complaining about her moderated status and appealing for alliances.

None of us bought into it.

This is an extreme example. It's obvious this woman has more problems than not liking western culture.

Most people are willing to hear our thoughts and ideas, as long as it is presented in respectful terms. Naturally, there are some ideas that are so abhorrent than no one wants to hear them, no matter how beautifully they are presented. In this case, her ideas were not abhorrent.

Granted, we all fail to be mindful of our speech sometimes. Tempers flare. Things get said. I am the biggest sinner I know in that area. Prior to my conversion, I always had a sharp tongue and I've had to make a conscious effort to overcome and control it. But I didn't see any justification for this weekend's discussion to be sharp or contentious at all.

I know it may seem like stating the obvious here. We all know that mean or mindless speech is destructive. (I can hear the whispers... "yeah.. so shyaddup, Chana!')

What I wonder is this though: What ways do you have to let someone know their speech is simply assaultive and hurtful? How do you go to them where they are so that they'll learn, internalize and, as a result, have a better discussion? Or is it even my responsibility to try?

I didn't succeed with my correspondent this weekend. She's sticking to her position.

~*

Symbols of belief....

What can someone tell about you, just by looking at you?

Last night, I had an email discussion with someone about this. As a five-precept woman (someone who commits to living her life according to the Five Precepts of Buddhism), my correspondent has chosen to wear black and white. This something that is done but is not immediately recognizable in North American culture.

I wear two amulets all the time. One of them is around my neck. One of them, in old tradition, is on a chain around my waist. My clothes are a symbol of my cultural identity. If someone knows what they mean, they get a glimpse into my worldview and belief system. Again, in North American culture, these would not be easily recognizable.

Here, everyone recognizes the turbin of a Punjab, the black and white of a Catholic nun or priest, a cross around the neck of a Christian, the Star of David on a Jew or the shaved head and saffron robes of a Buddhist nun. These things immediately give us information about a person.

Kind of like gang symbols. We know by sight who our homies are. :)

Our discussion was primarily about the importance of these outward symbols.

Personal view again: They have major importance to the individual wearing them. They reinforce and identify the wearer as a member of a certain group. Internally, it is a reminder of a commitment made to a way of life or a belief.

Externally, the symbols can mark a person for discrimination or for immediate acceptance. They can identify likemindedness. They can form community and they can alienate.

Yet most of us wear something or carry something that identifies us with our religious or cultural community.

What do you wear and what does it mean to you?


~*

Weekend: Desperately Seeking....

So.... last night I was going through my email, reading post after post. That often happens I wake up a lot during the night unable to sleep so I come to the computer.

Something has been gnawing at me. It's a bit of a sensitive topic so I'll be careful in how I present this.

It has to do with seeking sympathy for the purpose of bonding.

As I read through the mail from my Yahoo lists, it seemed the women were competing for the most dreadful, wretched situation. "My knees really hurt", one would say. Another would counter with "Wow... I wish only my knees hurt! My back hurts so bad, I can't even stand in line for ten minutes at the post office!"

A few posts later, most of them waxing poetic about their pets, another woman writes, "My husband's back was so bad that he was in traction for three months!"

I half expected someone to post "My husband's back was so bad that he had to get a fake spine!"

This roundtable competition went on for 30 posts or more, with most of the reply posts starting with the line "Oh, (name), I am so sorry you are going through that."

Now keep in mind that the women on the list, while we know each other a little bit, are not close friends or relatives.

I wouldn't be writing this post if they were. When it comes to my friends, Internet friends included, I definitely want to know when something is going on in her life. I'm an empathetic, compassionate person. I might not get gushy about it ~ but I do care. Overall, I am not a particularly sympathetic person, more of a practical "what can I do" type. My automatic response is to want to "fix".

I resent being emotionally manipulated. That is the feel I get from the women on the mailing list.
It also occurs with some people I meet casually. Occasionally when I go to the restaurant on the corner, I invite someone to sit with me if she or he happens to look lonely sitting alone. I'm usually alone but I bring a book. The company is purely optional but I do feel weird leaving someone sitting alone if they look lonely. So I ask. Sometimes they say yes. Sometimes they say no.

Invariably, by the end of our lunch I know every bit of bad luck, every betrayal and every stored-up resentment that person has carried around. I hear about every ache and pain. I hear about every boss who's a jerk and every husband/wife who doesn't meet up to the expectations of my lunch companion.

It seems that many people have gotten the notion that inflicting their misery on the world has no consequences. All of us need to whine on occasion. It's like purging negative energy. But with complete strangers in a coffee shop or on an Internet mailing list?

That is strange.

It could be that so many people simply long for meaningful conversation. It could be that many people find it easier to bond over adversity than over anything positive or uplifting?

What do you think? How does this strike you? And truly, I don't have a heart made of stone. I just want an opportunity to develop a basic knowledge of someone, grow to care, rather than to be dumped on.

What say you?

~*

Deconstructing the impossible...

The day before yesterday, I received a private email from a member of a Yahoogroup. The topic of the group is basically Buddhist community building.

The group is comprised of primarily western-style Buddhists, those who have worked the philosophy around to allow them to ignore the uncomfortable parts. I read the posts and don't say anything. I don't challenge them, even though there are some things expressed there that need to be challenged.

I got an email from another member who noticed my login name (thailandchani) and wrote me about Thailand. This individual also happens to be a transsexual. She has remained silent on the list about that fact as well as her draw and affinity for Thailand. In her, I may have met my match. We talked about the place on the phone for 8 hours! We said things we knew that no one who doesn't have this experience of feeling like an exile in our country of birth would understand. It's a kindredness. We talked, remembered, said the things we really think and feel with abandon, used every last little bit of Thai language known between the two of us, and generally felt the comfort of freedom to speak openly.

This would not have been okay on the email list itself. The risk of being ostracized would be high, not only because of our affinity for Thailand but for my open acceptance of transsexualism.

~*

I've noticed it on blogs as well! Someone says something controversial and people disappear. That is why most people are afraid to say too much. Social consequences. We see it in our site meters.

I can mention Thailand here. I can say nice things about it. I can wax poetic about it and write beautiful word pictures of my experiences and my life there. I can even talk about the real reasons why I took such a radical step. Let me talk about how life in this culture sucked the soul out of me until there was nothing left? Even that's okay.. but... let me express my anger? My hits would be down to zero within the next two days. BTDT.

~*

I remember one time, a really long time ago.. probably 30 years now... I went to a meeting of a religious-based women's group .. just to see what was going on and knowing I should have something to be involved in. It went great at first.

Then I disagreed about how the Palestinians were being treated by the Israelis. (This was during a particularly rough time over there... terrorism, wars, etc.)

Well, I was ostracized so fast, you would have been able to feel the wind!

The phone stopped ringing, people stopped associating with me.

I was shunned for expressing an opinion that went against the dominant opinion.


~*

Just a few days ago, I deleted a comment on Julie's blog on the topic of political correctness because I was afraid it might be misunderstood or had been misunderstood. The content of the comment escapes me at this point because my memory matches my attention span. I deleted the comment because of the uncertainty. I didn't know whether it might be cause a problem and, yes, decided to not take the chance.

~*

Consequently, everyone sits on their hands and no ideas of substance are exchanged. Nothing changes. We sit... stasis.

And I am not certain how to solve the problem, either. Even with my training in sociology, I don't have a bloody clue! This is a dynamic we never examined in college!

It's sad. Really sad. And such a waste of our planet time.

It's sad that we can't trust each other more, be just a bit more civil and really understand that, as the Desiderata expresses, that everyone, even the most ignorant among us, have something important to say. It's too bad we can't move beyond the notion that different opinions than our own should be annihilated.

It infects everyone and every thing. It has poisoned our ability to trust in each other's inherent willingness to accept contrary views. The group dynamic has silenced far too many voices, voices with something important to say. It has caused us to be overly cautious and overly fearful of the pack mentality reaction that often takes place when someone expresses an opinion that is not the dominant view or expressed with the dominant use of language.

At some point, I believe it's important to examine this, not only in terms of the costs to us as individuals, but the cost to us socially.

~*

The White Masai.....

So, I spent the weekend reading this book, recommended by several people. Cliff Notes: It is the story of a woman who visited Africa, was instinctively drawn, met a Masai man, married him and had a child. The book is the story of that relationship.

I had some mixed feelings about it.

For one thing, I wish the author would have told us more about what drew her so strongly to the culture of Africa, where she gained her knowledge and what went on internally. What was she looking for?

She expressed her affinity but gave us no details. I would have liked to know what aspects of the culture she found comforting. Explanations of the history behind the customs, an explanation of her "Masai body decorations". What Masai body decorations? Tattoos? Markings? Jewelry? And what did they mean?

The story begins in earnest when she meets Lketinga. She is immediately drawn to him and actively pursues him.

The author is not someone who swims in the deep end of the pool. I can't imagine a logical, intelligent person marrying someone with whom she can't communicate in a significantly different culture. It's apparent that she was physically attracted but surely she must have known that wouldn't be enough to sustain the relationship. Also, admittedly, I had some serious problems with the way she dumped her boyfriend in Kenya and sent him back to Switzerland by himself. It seemed rather heartless and whimsical.

I suspect someone would have to do a lot of soul-searching and a lot of self-evaluation to know whether an adjustment of that magnitude would be possible, to marry a man and create a life in a completely foreign environment.

Naturally, the book got me to thinking about my time in Thailand and what would have happened if I'd met a Thai man to whom I was attracted. There were certainly plenty of them around. No secrets here. I think Thai men are beautiful to look at.

But... given my limited experience of Thailand at that time, I honestly can't imagine that a relationship would have been possible. Not yet.

My exploration and research into Thai culture took place not only there but after I got back. There is so much depth and history that it would have been impossible to absorb it all in the time I was physically there.

First came the affinity ~ then came the learning about the culture enough to see if the affinity would last.

The affinity not only lasted. It grew. I internalized it more and more. Effortlessly. The more I learned, the more I knew it was for me.

With that knowledge, a relationship (if it should occur) would probably work. The reasons for certain behaviors are known to me and I can cope with them ~ even assimilate them. I have already assimilated many of them.

In the case of the author, I can't help but wonder if she was just adventure-seeking. There were no final thoughts, nothing to indicate what what she learned or how she grew from the experience. It ended too suddenly.

Any other thoughts? From those who read the book.... or from those who didn't? Do you think a cross-cultural relationship would work without foundation-building?

Maybe I am just too cautious.


Peace,

~Chani

(Note: I was poking around on Amazon this morning and discovered that there is a follow-up book to "The White Masai" called "Reunion in Barsaloi". It has not been released yet but will be soon.  I'll probably read it because I thoroughly enjoy torturing myself. Seriously though, it might be interesting to see if she's explored any of this in a bit more depth.)