Micro aggression

I read an interesting article this morning about micro aggression.  For those of you not familiar with the term, micro aggression is defined as "a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority."

I'm not a member of a marginalized group in a visible sort of way, but when I was a teenage mother, and when I was a single teenage mother, I got a taste of being identified on sight as "less than".  I have also experienced feeling marginalized by my political non-conformance with my demographic peers.

So maybe, just maybe, I have no idea what I am talking about.

But I did deal with aggression and micro aggression in the workplace as a professional woman in an industry dominated by men.  So maybe, just maybe, I do have an idea.

The question that was featured in the article on micro aggression that was used to illustrate how pervasive and destructive micro aggression is was the question "Where are you from?"  When the author of the piece answered "New York", the response was "No, where are you really from?"  The author interpreted this as trying to determine her ethnic and racial background.

My regular readers know that I would rather diffuse than confront, and my typical diffusion technique is humor or surprise.  If someone asks where are you really from, what is wrong with responding, "Really, I came out of my mother's uterus through her vagina."  That should shut down the probing.  Or if you are uncomfortable with saying vagina to a stranger, how about "I am a gift from God to my parents"  or "I am a child of the universe".

Or alternatively, the response could be at the onset, "New York, how about you?  Where are you from?"  If either of these tactics doesn't steer the conversation away from ethnic or racial discomfort, why not spin into a DNA discussion.  "I really don't know, but I'm thinking of doing one of those DNA tests.  Do you know anyone that has done one of those?  Isn't science the greatest?  Did you see where researchers in California think they will have a bionic kidney ready for human trials by the end of this year?"

All of the diversion answers have to be comfortable for the speaker, and have to feel natural and light hearted.  If someone is comfortable with aggression, any behavior or words from you that appear to be aggressive in response will only help them justify their aggression.  But responding with good humor, and innocence, can be diffusing.

Years ago I went out to lunch with two of my coworkers.  We were a racially mixed group of three.  The hostess pointedly ignored us at the restaurant, and we left.  My non-white coworkers felt racially profiled.  I just felt like the restaurant had terrible service and I would never go back.  We were all correct in our assessments.

But I never forgot that incident.  And I realized that many people live in a world where they are disregarded on a systemic basis because of their appearance.

We aren't going to change the world overnight.  The people that think that ethnicity or race are determining characteristics are going to have to evolve to a better place because they want to.  We can try to inspire them to see the world differently, but we can't make them.

But we can work harder at making ourselves more immune to their ignorance.  We can diffuse their micro aggression with humor or with innocence, even if our innocence is contrived.  Our individual power lies in our ability to allow others to own their ignorance and prejudice, and not take any ownership or responsibility for their issues.

Each of us is a child of the universe.  A unique and wonderful gift to the people in our lives.  As much as possible, protect yourself from those who would try to make you feel "less than".  That is their failing.

When anyone seeks to see what is not beautiful or perfect in another, they miss the chance to see what is beautiful and perfect in that person.

The micro aggressor is the loser in the game of life.  They are losing the opportunity to experience the wonderful gift that each person can be.  Don't let their smallness dim your light.  Shine on for all of us that celebrate you.

Propaganda

There is a temporary exhibit at the National World War II Museum, titled "State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda, a traveling exhibition from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC." .

I sincerely wish that everyone in America could experience this exhibit.  I believe, if the exhibit is viewed openly and honestly, it has the power to make an individual question everything that they see, read or hear in the media, the arts, and in entertainment.

At the beginning of the exhibit there is a poster:

The words on the poster really made me stop and think.  How much information am I exposed to on a daily basis that is designed to shape my opinion and behavior?

How often is the information shared via newspapers, television, radio and the internet using truths, half-truths, or lies?  I've posted before about each of us having our own truth based on the world that we have experienced.  How does the information you are viewing impact your truth?  Is it aligned with your truth?  Does it refute your truth?  Are you more inclined to be skeptical if the information is aligned with your truth or in opposition to your truth?

Is information selectively omitted?  If you read or watch different sources, you get different pieces of information.  Why is the source omitting certain pieces?  What narrative are they trying reinforce?  What truth do they want you to embrace as your own truth?

How simple or complex are the discussions on the issues?  Simplicity is very attractive, but very little is simple.  The more simplistic and one dimensional the discussion, the less likely it is honestly presenting the issue as it really exists.

Is the information being presented in a way devised to provoke an emotional response?  Emotions are wonderful, they make life rich and textured.  But they are also dangerous in that our emotions can readily be used to manipulate us.  What does the presenter of the information have to gain by soliciting your anger, your fear or your compassion?  Does the emotion provoked override your ability to run the information past your logic filter?  Any time information is presented in such a way as to provoke an emotional response, it should be filed away until the emotion recedes and the matter can be reviewed logically.

Is there an agenda being supported by the way the information is presented?  Is the information being shared designed to make you feel strongly for or against and issue, or a country, or a political party, or a group of people?  Any information designed to convince you of anything should be a red flag for the possibility of propaganda.

Are you hearing or reading information that denigrates a group of people, rather than highlights the strengths of a group of people?  Conversely is one or another group of people or a person presented as a savior?  Are issues laid out clearly, in non-emotional language, or are they presented as A is good and B is bad?  You are an intelligent thinking being.  You are capable of sorting through facts and analyzing what is best for you in your situation, and how that differs from what may be best for others in different situations.  Challenge what you hear and read that wants to convince you.  Sort out the facts.

The last bullet point is the hardest.  How do you know that the information has been tailored for your consumption, so that the propaganda has an insidious impact on your thinking?

I can only implore you to be vigilant.

I have heard many times, and wondered many times how the Holocaust could have occurred.  I have wondered where the good people were.  Why they failed to speak out.  What I learned in the propaganda exhibit at the World War II Museum is that the skillful use of message, and messaging, and targeting can sway public opinion.

It is not that good people did not exist.  Good people's fears and anger were exploited, and then their survival depended on looking away from the atrocities, or simply pretending the atrocities were not happening.

And it wasn't just the news that was shaping public opinion.  It was movies and music, too.  Films were called documentaries that were really fiction designed to shape public opinion.

I actually visited the exhibit twice, because I wanted to process what I had learned and then be exposed to it again.  I came away after the second visit even more convinced that I am vulnerable to being influenced by a skilled propaganda campaign, and I believe we all are.

Any time too many voices want me to believe the same thing, any time someone uses emotions to try to convince me to see things their way, I need to make sure my defenses are in place, and my logic filter is robust.

Propaganda is real. It is not a tool that was once used that is now defunct.  Skilled propagandists shape your opinions, your truth and your reality without your knowledge if you let your guard down.

Be vigilant.  Be skeptical.  Our humanity depends on us doing that.

Bouncing Thoughts

This morning on the radio, a caller asserted there is no such thing as global warming or climate change because he learned in fourth grade that there was a climate cycle on planet Earth and what we are observing is simply part of that cycle.

I wanted to ask him if he believes that cell phones exist.  Because since he said that he was in fourth grade sixty years ago, and if climate change was real he would have learned about it, then he would have learned about cell phones if they were real.

How can people live in the world where the impossible becomes reality through technology on a daily basis think that scientists don't know more than they do?

A shock comedian did a terrible thing, creating and publishing a gruesome photograph involving a mask of the severed head of a human.  I haven't heard anyone support her action.  But I hear and read people saying that other gruesome photographs existed involving other humans and no one cared.

I think when you only spend time with people who think like you that it is easy to drift further and further into unacceptable behavior and actions, as long as the group think isn't disturbed.  The acceptable boundaries continue to expand since hatred is what you have in common in your group.  The hatred allows a degradation of individual humanity, until inhumane behavior and acts feel acceptable.  When someone outside the group sees the behavior or action, they can still recognize how wrong it is, but the self supporting insular group loses the ability to see that.

The publication of the photos of Uday and Qusay Hussein's dead bodies is a great example of how hatred erodes our humanity.  All of us should have been as appalled at those pictures being published as we are when our enemies publish pictures of our dead, but many cheered instead of being horrified.

The sad thing is that in America, many humans seem to be offended by the horrific only if they like or care about the victim.  The United Nations estimates that around 5000 Syrians are dying every month, and yet most Americans do not want to offer refuge to Syrians.  However, we will mourn and tweet and turn our Facebook pages into a Union Jack because 20 people in Great Britain died leaving a concert.

I don't think it is wrong that we mourn those innocent victims.  I just mourn that we don't mourn all innocent victims.

What in the world does that have to do with whether or not a guy calling the radio believes in climate change or not?

I believe that the very same voices that work to erode our humanity also work to erode our logic.  One time, a long time ago, a friend of mine said about another friend of mine, "He thinks he is so smart."  The "he" in question has a doctorate in geophysics.  I replied, "He doesn't 'think' he is so smart, he IS so smart".  My friend had a voice inside her head that told her that she was just as smart as "he" was, so had no reason to believe he was correct.  Reality was that he had much more knowledge, understanding and analytical ability, and would never argue for the sake of argument.  If he corrected someone, it was out of a sincere desire to educate them to the facts.  Laid back, easy-going guy, but hated to see ignorance persist if he had a shot at correcting the situation.  He eventually gave up on my friend, and realized she preferred ignorance to having her beliefs challenged.

I think all humans can be like my friend.  None of us like to have our beliefs challenged.  But if no one ever challenged the status quo, no progress would be made.  George Bernard Shaw said, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

I want to be the unreasonable man.  I want the world to get better, so I have to persist in trying to make it better.

Reasonable people believe what they hear, they go along and get along.  When we do that, when we are reasonable, we face the very real danger of following a crowd until we lose our humanity, and our ability to see the difference between right and wrong.

Be unreasonable.  Challenge the crowd.  Hold yourself accountable to a higher ethical and moral standard.

People will scoff.  They will mock.  Persist.  Our collective humanity depends on each of us fighting to keep our individual humanity intact.  And if we lose our humanity, we have lost everything.

The great divide

I have a relatively small group of family and friends who I align with politically.  I tend to lean to the left, and believe that part of the function of government is to provide social safety nets.

Most of my family and many of my friends lean to the right, and many of them are so far right there is no A-B space in the Ven diagram of our political beliefs.

This has been true for years, and for years, it didn't matter much.

That was before the great divide.

I don't know exactly when it happened.  I know it is a complicated issue, with lots of variables that led us to where we are.  And I know it is a terrible limiting circumstance.

Once upon a time, I felt comfortable calling friends to get together, comfortable going to family events.  Now, there is anxiety.  Will talk turn to politics?  Will I be able to keep quiet if they do without compromising either my values or my relationships?

My memory might be completely flawed, but is seems like for most of my life I could go to a picnic, or a party, or a funeral, or any kind of get together at all without talking about or hearing about politics.

We used to talk about movies, and sports, and what was happening in our lives.  We would talk about vacations, or school trips.  We talked about games we liked to play, and we even played games.  We would go places and do things together, and that created a whole bunch more to talk about.  Talking about what we were seeing, and remembering what we had enjoyed together in the past.

In the past month I had the opportunity to spend a lot of time with family and friends, and it was all good.  Lots of conversation, but all about the things that we have in common, not the things that divide us.  The mix of people was more to the ones I align with, so that helped.  But it was relatively easy to avoid the scary topics with the others.  It gave me hope that we can get past the great divide.

But then I listen to the radio, or read the news, or browse social media, and I realize that the great divide still exists.

And the way news is reported and consumed makes it worse.  If a person spent a week watching only right leaning news and reading right leaning news they would live in a completely different reality from a person that watched only left leaning news and read only left leaning news.  That is crazy, and dangerous.

I watched a program about the Kennedy assassination last night.  Yesterday was the 100th anniversary of President Kennedy's birth, and Memorial Day, so I understand the programming choice and timing.  I was very young when it happened, so didn't realize how much controversy and criticism of the way the reporting and investigation was handled happened at the time.  Even with all that controversy and criticism, the nightly news programs all appeared to be reporting on it in the same way.  Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Dan Rather; all of them telling the same story.

Where did that go?  When and how did ratings get more important than facts and truth?  Why is news reporting not news reporting but rather news and opinions?  And even worse, why is it cherry picked to only paint the picture one side or the other wants to paint?

We humans are all subject to being manipulated.  The best defense against being manipulated is to never trust one source or another too much.  Whenever we agree with what we are hearing, we need to challenge ourselves to question it.  Skepticism is the greatest defense of freedom.

This great divide can and will destroy us if we let it.  Everyone who values freedom needs to consciously decide to find things to unite us.  We need to find common ground to build on.  We need to value our differences, and find ways to listen when we disagree.  We can learn to disagree without being disagreeable.  We can be different without calling each other names.

Life isn't a game with winners and losers.  It is a journey. A journey that I believe is intended to enrich us.  To enlighten us.  I believe we are here to leave things and people better because we touched them.

That opportunity is lost if we can't cross the great divide.  Each moment spent in disharmony is a moment you can never get back.  I don't want to waste the precious moments of my life.  So I will choose to find harmony when and where I can.  I will choose to find topics that unite me with the people in my world.  I will not be quiet in the face of hate or injustice, but I will try to model the world I want to see, rather than try to force people into believing as I do.

We didn't get to this great divide overnight, and we won't bridge this divide overnight.  But until we start trying, it will just get wider.  And for me, that is just not a good answer.

I read another book

I love to read.  I have loved to read my whole life, as far as I can remember.  Reading has always been a stolen  pleasure, something you can do when all the responsibilities of life have been met for the day.

Retirement has given me a lot more time to read.   Sometimes, I feel guilty about it, because I feel like I have too much leisure time.   I'm working on getting over that.

The book I finished last night has really got me thinking.  It had me thinking while I was reading it as well.

The book was well written.  It started slow, but then got quite engrossing.  I guess the book could best be classified as a slice of life book.  The book was set during the Great Depression of the 1930's.  It started in Scotland, moved to New York City, then to Kansas, then to California and Salt Lake City, Utah.

There were multiple characters and storylines in the book, and some of the characters were difficult to like, and others were difficult to understand.  There was only one character that really endeared herself to me, and she was quite a minor character.

I don't know what I expected from the book, but the ending left me disappointed. It wasn't as bad as some books where I actually mourn the time that I gave to those characters and that story, but still, disappointed.

One of the reasons is that the book seemed to embrace the idea that life is pointless, and filled with sorrow and pain.

News flash - I know life is filled with sorrow and pain, but I don't think life is pointless.

I think that life is hard.  I'm not a fan of fiction that focuses on how hard life is.  I like fiction that challenges me to think about how hard life is, as long as it also challenges me to think about how I can make it better.

I like fiction that embraces hope and the power of the human spirit.

I like fiction that has a happy ending.  But I like some fiction that illustrates there are no happy endings, just resolutions on a continuum that we all have to find a way to live with.

That is probably why I tend to read all the works of an author when I find one that I like.  I take great comfort in knowing that no matter how the story ends, I won't be disappointed.

There are a couple of my favorite authors whose books always leave me conflicted, and challenged.  Jodi Picoult and Karma Brown are two of those.  They tackle difficult subjects, like childhood disease, and death, and disability.

But they do it in a way that opens my mind and my heart to what I can't personally know, but what I can experience through fiction.  I like both of those authors because while I might not be able to understand the motivation of their characters on the surface, they inform me of why their characters do what they do and feel what they feel.

And then, even if I can't imagine making the same choices, I can empathize with why the characters made the choices they made.

As I have been writing this blog post I have worked out what I need from the fiction I read.  I need the author to show me a complete picture of a character.

Plot is important.  Storyline is important.  But for me to really enjoy a book, the characters have to be real to me. They have to have enough depth and shading to touch me emotionally.

To really enjoy fiction, I have to emotionally engage with the characters.  Once I do that, engaging with the story is easy.

Lightbulb moment.  I read the same way I live.  It is all about the emotional connection for me.  Connecting to people emotionally, even if I am very ideologically different from them, is what makes life good for me.  Real and fictional people.

I hope I am creating characters in my stories that people can connect with emotionally.  I feel my characters' moods, I see their depth and their humanity and fragility, but I know from my reading how difficult it can be to create that connection for your readers to your characters.

Every time I read another book that affects me either very positively or very negatively, I learn more about what I want to accomplish with my craft.

Every moment spent reading is in a way, a moment spent learning more about the writer I want to be.  I hope that turns out to be time well spent.

Flea Market

I have heard it said and I believe that sooner or later, you don't own your stuff, it owns you.  My husband and I are enjoying a little vacation.  Yesterday, we went through a couple of antique stores and to a large open air flea market.

For those not familiar with the term flea market, it is also called a bazaar, or a car boot sale.  Basically, a flea market is a place where people come to sell their stuff to other people.

Some of the stuff is quite nice.  Often artisans are located at flea markets, selling custom made soaps and oils, quilts, clothes and art.   There are amazingly talented people in this big old world, and seeing them display their talents is always a treat.

Because we are traveling, after seeing all that stuff, going back to the hotel room with only the stuff I packed for this trip got me to thinking about the house full of stuff at home, and what I really miss.

I miss my coffee mugs.  I have a bunch of extra large mugs that are perfect for cafe au lait.  On the road, I get a lot of coffee in disposable cups, and hardly ever get my cafe au lait.

I miss my pillow.   Right now, I feel like I have the perfect pillow, and whenever I sleep in a hotel, no matter how nice the pillows are, they are not as nice as my pillow.

I miss my yoga pants.  I usually always put a pair in my suitcase, but this time I forgot. I know yoga pants get a bad rap, but they are one handy item of clothing.  If you put on pajamas, and then need to go to the lobby or the ice machine, if you are older than six, you look kind of goofy.  Yoga pants fill the gap.  You can even run to a convenience store or a fast food restaurant in a pinch.  After all, no one knows you.

I miss my pink notebook.  It is the keeper of my ideas, and it is sitting on the desk at home.

But that is about it.  All the other stuff at my house is just stuff, that if it disappeared, I wouldn't really miss it.

I have keepsakes and treasures, and I know if I lost them I would be sad, but it would be less than honest to say I would miss them.

The true treasures in my life are living creatures.  My husband, my daughter, my family and friends, my Beaux and Scarlett.  The memories I make with them, and the time I spend with them are what I would miss most if it were gone.

My husband and I have been married for more than twenty-nine years.  We have so much shared experience, so many shared memories, that we have a language all our own inside our relationship.  Phrases that mean nothing to someone else are rich with meaning and memory for us.  That is the treasure in life.

I talked to my daughter last night.  We talked about everything and nothing.  Just hearing her voice and spending time with her is treasure.

It can be easy to get caught up in the stuff of our lives.  Things to buy, things to own.  And then you can get caught up in the care and feeding of that stuff.  And miss out on the time to make memories with your loved ones.

The stuff is all transient.  We are all transient.  As much as possible, try to recognize the treasure in your life isn't stuff, it is time.

And time well spent with loved ones increases your treasure trove of memories.  And those memories are worth far more than any amount of stuff.

Shaking my head

Everyone who knows me or who reads this blog regularly knows that I like finding common ground.  I like to find the things that bind us, and focus on those things instead of the things that separate us.

Most of you also know I don't believe social media platforms like Facebook are an appropriate platform for argument or debate.  I observed a Facebook argument this week that has left me shaking my head.  Here is how it went.

A friend who has a child with congenital heart disease expressed concern about what would happen to her child if the Affordable Care Act is repealed.  The baby isn't even three years old, and has already had over three million dollars in medical expenses, and will need multiple additional open heart surgeries to survive.

Someone actually thought it was a good idea to post on that thread that they think repeal is a good thing.

What followed is mind-blowing.  "My child could die."  "But my premiums will go down."  "My child could die."  "But bad people take advantage."  "My child could die."  "I would help your child, but bad people and premiums."

I've greatly oversimplified, but holy moly!  First, why did that person even think it was in the same zip code as appropriate to say anything other than I hope that nothing hurts your child's chances of survival?

What level of self-absorption does a person have to achieve before they think that anything, I repeat anything, in their world view matters more than a parent trying to save their child's life?

How does someone get to the point where they think their opinion belongs on everyone else's posts?  If you have an opinion, put it on your own Facebook or Instagram or Twitter.  Don't pollute the universe.

I don't know the person, who proceeded to engage in arguments with multiple people who tried to illustrate that his opinion was just that, and that there are facts that support different opinions.

Any facts presented that did not support his opinion were dismissed as coming from illegitimate sources.  He deflected into welfare and guns and all sorts of other nonsense.  Reading the comments, I felt like the person really thought he was doing a service to humanity to illustrate that everyone who did not share his opinion is either stupid, misinformed, or simply incompetent.

Health care is complicated, and deserves reasonable, thoughtful debate.  Healthcare is an emotional issue for many people, so rational debate is really difficult.  The Affordable Care Act is far from perfect.  In America, we need to do something to fix our broken healthcare system.  We spend too much money for the outcomes we get.  Too many people still fall through the cracks in the system.  There is too much corporate money being made, and too much money going into the hands of healthcare executives at the expense of the consumer.

But a parent being genuinely frightened that they might liquidate all their assets to provide necessary medical care for their child and still have to watch their child die because there is no more money is not a time for debate.

It is a time for compassion.  For support.  For an outpouring of love.

And for all those reading this who think that there is some magical safety net that would prevent a child dying because of a lack of money, God and the Universe bless you for your innocence.  No such safety net exists in the United States. The United States is 45th in the listing of Infant Mortality Rate.  That means infants dies less frequently in 44 other countries than they do in the US.  The leading causes of infant mortality are birth asphyxia, pneumonia, birth complications, neonatal infections, diarrhea, malaria, measles and malnutrition.  All of which can be traced to lack of appropriate hygiene or prenatal care.  Which are hard to get when you are poor.

I know that it is tempting to jump in with an opinion when you read something on social media that doesn't fit your world view.  If you feel that strongly about it, put something on your own wall, or start a blog. (HA!)  But please, think about what you are doing.  There is now a person in the world that I don't know and I hope I never meet, because of the way that person chose to present themselves in my friend's world.

None of us ever have to do that.