If it ain't broke, don't fix it....

First of all, a short note: Over the past three days, I have lost the ability to ping Technorati to update content here. I've done all the pleading with Technorati that can be done and they simply will not fix the problem.

Basically this means that those of you who get updates through Technorati will no longer be getting them. If you see old content when you check Technorati, it is probably not valid. I don't let content get old here... so.... please don't depend on Technorati for accurate information.

I'm totally disgusted with their lack of responsiveness to this problem. The help forum is filled with others having the same problem and Technorati apparently has no interest in solving it. The endless waiting and lack of response has convinced me that pinging is no longer an option for me.

~*

Following up a bit more on the previous thread (which is still active, by the way), I gave this some more thought last night.

I'm basically a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" kind of person. I can't help but wonder what would shift and change if we were all to meet each other. The idea of meeting individually isn't quite so intimidating ~ but meeting in a group would be entirely overwhelming. At least for me.

Naturally, me being me, I wanted to think about why that's so. Why would one way be inherently non-threatening and the other nearly paralyzing?

I believe there is the potential for relationships, regardless of their nature but especially virtual ones, can change when group dynamics are introduced.

I just finished reading a book last night called "Please Stop Laughing At Me". It was a bit hard to get through it because it was a brutal examination of group dynamics, how things can happen when it goes south.

Maybe I'm just too overly protective or too cautious, but honestly speaking ~ I like things the way they are here. I like the honesty and the respectful discussions we have with each other. I like the different personalities who gather at this virtual roundtable. I like the ideas that flow like a breeze through this space. It's difficult to imagine that anonymity doesn't play some part in that.

I will never be crawling inside any of your private lives. I will not be knowing things you don't want me to know. There is no opportunity for the "Blink" (reference to the book) dynamic to take place.

I'm finding it hard to see how the quality of what we do here is diminished by the fact that I will not be meeting any of you in a group setting.

It's hard to predict what choices might be made if the opportunity presents itself to meet any of you privately, one-on-one. Chances are... I'd probably do it.

So... taking this from the strictly personal to a broader perspective, how do you think the group dynamic could affect the openness and honesty that most of us give and receive when communicating in each other's comment templates?


Peace,


~Chani

Childfree by Choice?

Note: 6/22/07 - Same trouble with Technorati. I can not update. Please drop by the site to see new content. Technorati technical support is not responsive.

I updated content at 8.30 am.


~*


One of the comments on yesterday's post got me thinking about something.

Is not having children selfish?

It might be, if it is presupposed that those who choose to not have children are doing so only because they don't want to be bothered or distracted from full-fledged hedonism. In the general view, that is the only logical reason to not have children. The choice is made by people who are more concerned with their own comfort, their "stuff", want their own money and don't want to sacrifice anything.

That is just as valid a reason as any other to not have them.

And the question always remains for any culture; do women have an obligation to have children?
I chose to not have children for a variety of reasons. I chose for both personal and larger reasons. It was definitely a choice and not happenstance.

There comes a point in all of our lives when we have to look at ourselves very honestly, admitting both shortcomings and strengths, all the while understanding that those things are interchangeable depending on the circumstances. We make choices and decisions based on that knowledge.

My focus has always been more global than individual. I rarely see the trees for the forest. It would be literally impossible for me to raise a child in this culture, knowing that the ultimate objective is to train her to be a good little producer and consumer for corporate America. I could not in good conscience teach a child to be a me-first individualist whose goal would be to fit into the marketplace and conquer it. Regardless of ideals, when it comes to kids we have to deal with reality. Teaching them to be eccentric is not in their best interest because it guarantees they will have a harder life.

My understanding from child psychology classes was that children need to be taught be independent islands who need no one and the highest objective in life is to be able to walk out into the marketplace on their own without a supportive community to surround them. Lifelong dependence on family is viewed as pathology. Even community is commodified as we teach children to compete for friendships and community. I would have to teach them more self-sufficiency than is necessary. It's not how I believe and is not part of my moral system. Since I would be responsible for that child's moral upbringing, she or he would be at a disadvantage for this culture and this era.

When I was at child-bearing age, I did not have a chosen culture to pass along or to guide me as I do now. The possibility of relocating somewhere else to raise my children was never an option. At least I didn't see it at the time.

The final reason for my decision is that I've never been able to trust another person so thoroughly that I could have children with him and know he'd stick around to raise them with me. I was raised with a womanizer. I did not want the life of a single mother. It's too hard. Period.

So... are those selfish reasons?

Ultimately. Yes. Of course they're selfish.

If I was completely self-sacrificing, I would have had them anyway and raised them the way Piaget and the child-rearing authorities say they are to be raised. I would have trained good little independent consumers and called it good. I would have been praised by my family, friends and culture. I would have lived up to my destiny as a female.

I could have chosen to have children to make other people happy, regardless of the consequences to my own life. I could have had the appointed 2.5 of my generation and raised them. When all is said and done, I do step up to the plate when it counts. The children would have been raised.

And which decision would have been more selfish in the long run?

(I should make it clear that I am not challenging anyone's choice to have or not have children. I am only relating my own experience. It does seem that the best reason to have children always remains the same ~ no matter what ~ and that's because you want them.)


Opinions?


Peace,

~Chani