As anyone who has read my blog can readily ascertain, I am not a religious person although I would not define myself as an atheist, since even that label implies a measure of certainty I can not claim.
I see no reason to believe in an After Life, at least not one in which I will exist as a conscious being. This lack of belief is not a choice on my part. Indeed, I would much rather believe, for I imagine it brings great comfort to those who do. Some of the people whom I most love and admire are Believers, and it would be presumptuous, even cruel -- not to mention pointless -- to challenge their faith. I once tried to explain this to a friend: how I envied her gift of faith! She sharply reprimanded me, explaining that faith was not a gift: rather, it was something a Christian had to work at. I've often thought about that; maybe she's right. But trying to convince myself that something I don't believe is true is like trying to pretend you're in love when you're not. I'm not willing to lie to myself or others in that way.
Yet, I try to keep my heart open to all possibilities.
When I look out upon the grass growing lushly, the daffodils and tulips blooming, I wish I were reminded of the Resurrection and the promise of Eternal Life. Instead, I find myself remembering my father's premature death twenty-five years ago. He died suddenly and unexpectedly the Saturday before Easter, and his death was so shocking and terrible to us that Easter has become an anniversary of this event, a day of remembrance and some sorrow for both my sisters and me. As the years pass, I am more inclined to contemplate the great gifts he gave me, the occasions of joy we shared, his wisdom and humor, but there is always a part of me that mourns his loss afresh on Easter Sunday.
And this Easter, I learn of the death of a friend, only a few years older than myself, and I am reminded of the ephemeral nature of life. This is a woman who I thought would live to be very, very old. Both her parents had lived well into their nineties, and she seemed cut from the same enduring Norwegian peasant stock. But more than that, I have never known anyone who had more zest for life than she. I have never known anyone who laughed as much, gave as generously, took more pleasure from this world. How could death defeat her unassailable energy and boundless cheer? I used to gently mock her, call her goofy and giddy, but honestly? I was always a bit envious of her capacity for joy.
It really seems impossible that we will never meet with her again in some cafe, to be regaled with tales of her latest adventures or admire her latest thrift shop acquisitions.
What kind of woman was she? She was the kind of woman who wore unusual hats, and carried a handbag with a clock embedded in it (because she was chronically late). She made krumkakke every Christmas. She hired a belly dancer to entertain her guests at her sixtieth birthday party. She spent every penny she had (never much) and dealt with her lack of medical insurance by cheerfully resolving never to get sick. She had a series of (scandalously) younger beaus, and then settled down with a much older one -- who died in her arms.
Tonight some friends and I will gather, a sort of informal wake I expect, and reminisce. I will probably drink too much wine and I am sure that I will cry. I will try to take comfort in the fact that she spent the last two years of her life with the people she loved most, and lived long enough to hold her only grandchild. I will try to learn from her example how to embrace the life I have, and not to squander another moment of whatever precious time is left -- be it counted in hours, weeks, or years -- in misery or despair.
Sunday, April 20, 2014
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Mary, Mary, Mary!
Over at Return of Queens, a lady with dubs herself "Charity Love" (without apparent irony) has written a piece about "Envy." This is part of the Queens' series on the "Seven Deadly Sins," and I cannot wait to read each and every one. Miss Love is specifically targeting the indisputable envy that fugly "feminists" have of beautiful feminine women (like the gals at Return of Queens no doubt).
And guess who has popped up there in the comments section, not two hours ago?
"What I find is that gossip and unsubstantiated accusations are tools that women sometimes use against other women of whom they are envious. I suppose if we are honest, nearly all of us have engaged in such behavior at one point or another, so we probably all have some room to grow in this area, and I'm not too proud to say that I certainly need to ask God to set a guard over my mouth sometimes." [italics mine]
Pardon me for taking the Lord's name in vain here, but Jesus H. Christ, it appears that SSM is blaming her recent (re) doxxing and character assassination on the envy of other women!
Proving, in case anyone had any doubts up to this point, that, as one parody blogger observed, "SSM has the self awareness of a taco." And I think the taco could sue for defamation in this case.
And guess who has popped up there in the comments section, not two hours ago?
"What I find is that gossip and unsubstantiated accusations are tools that women sometimes use against other women of whom they are envious. I suppose if we are honest, nearly all of us have engaged in such behavior at one point or another, so we probably all have some room to grow in this area, and I'm not too proud to say that I certainly need to ask God to set a guard over my mouth sometimes." [italics mine]
Pardon me for taking the Lord's name in vain here, but Jesus H. Christ, it appears that SSM is blaming her recent (re) doxxing and character assassination on the envy of other women!
Proving, in case anyone had any doubts up to this point, that, as one parody blogger observed, "SSM has the self awareness of a taco." And I think the taco could sue for defamation in this case.
Heavier Than Heaven
The fact that I can still vividly remember where-I-was-and-what-I-was-doing the first time I heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit" (and also where-I-was-and-what-I-was-doing when I learned of Kurt Cobain's suicide) is a measure of how powerfully the music of Nirvana moved me. I may be a "baby boomer," but I've always identified, culturally at least, with the Generation Xers.
I've been observing the twentieth anniversary of Cobain's death by reading Charles Cross's "definitive" 2001 biography of Cobain, Heavier Than Heaven. And trust me, this book is "heavy" in every sense of the word.
There are no great revelations here: Cobain was a sweet, sensitive child with artistic inclinations who grew into an incorrigible, depressed adolescent who was a complete pain in the ass to everyone who cared about him. What ultimately (and narrowly) saved him from becoming a professional homeless person was his commitment to his music. Cobain was, in fact, extraordinarily ambitious and driven. He was cunning, manipulative, conflict-avoidant, self-mythologizing, and had no qualms about taking advantage of anyone who lent him a hand.
None of which diminishes his musical legacy of course, or even makes this reader dislike him personally. In fact, I am in admiration of his monomaniacal quest to achieve popular success. The fact that this success did not, in the end, make him happy is the most tragic aspect of his life ("answered prayers" and all that).
Part of the reason I am finding the book an interesting, albeit predictable, read is that I have spent a lot of time in the places Cross describes. In the early nineties, I even considered moving to Aberdeen -- probably because the rents were so incredibly cheap there and I briefly fancied the romance of living in a modern ruin.
Anyway, I'm developing a lesson built around Nirvana for one of my classes next week. One of the perks of being a teacher is that I get to inflict my musical and literary tastes on my students (most of whom have never heard of Cobain, but all of whom will recognize the opening bars of "Smells Like Teen Spirit").
I've been observing the twentieth anniversary of Cobain's death by reading Charles Cross's "definitive" 2001 biography of Cobain, Heavier Than Heaven. And trust me, this book is "heavy" in every sense of the word.
There are no great revelations here: Cobain was a sweet, sensitive child with artistic inclinations who grew into an incorrigible, depressed adolescent who was a complete pain in the ass to everyone who cared about him. What ultimately (and narrowly) saved him from becoming a professional homeless person was his commitment to his music. Cobain was, in fact, extraordinarily ambitious and driven. He was cunning, manipulative, conflict-avoidant, self-mythologizing, and had no qualms about taking advantage of anyone who lent him a hand.
None of which diminishes his musical legacy of course, or even makes this reader dislike him personally. In fact, I am in admiration of his monomaniacal quest to achieve popular success. The fact that this success did not, in the end, make him happy is the most tragic aspect of his life ("answered prayers" and all that).
Part of the reason I am finding the book an interesting, albeit predictable, read is that I have spent a lot of time in the places Cross describes. In the early nineties, I even considered moving to Aberdeen -- probably because the rents were so incredibly cheap there and I briefly fancied the romance of living in a modern ruin.
Anyway, I'm developing a lesson built around Nirvana for one of my classes next week. One of the perks of being a teacher is that I get to inflict my musical and literary tastes on my students (most of whom have never heard of Cobain, but all of whom will recognize the opening bars of "Smells Like Teen Spirit").
Friday, April 18, 2014
They Walk Amongst Us
I've spent some time musing over whether certain prominent "manospherians" are psychopaths or sociopaths. I was recently referred to this link which distinguishes the two conditions.
One of the differences appears to be that sociopaths tend to act out in controlled, premeditated ways, to indulge in "calculated or opportunistic violence," and are "often social predators." Psychopaths, on the other hand, tend to be impulsive, and more likely to run afoul of law enforcement. So I will continue to use the term "sociopathic" to describe many of the behaviors I have observed by reading the manosphere.
We are learning that sociopaths are more common than previously acknowledged, and they often function at very high levels. I've read several articles or books in the past year written by people who identify as sociopaths. There is even considerable interest in whether, and in what ways, sociopaths serve society or whether sociopathy is an evolutionarily advantageous trait. It's a topic that the manosphereans themselves occasionally discuss, often with some anxiety.
Personally, I have known two people in my life that I suspect were sociopaths, one a (now deceased) member of my own family. Intelligent sociopaths perform "normalcy" so well that in the context of superficial relationships, their sociopathy is not detectable. So it is reasonable to assume that most of them walk amongst us unrecognized.
And that's probably true of many of the "manospherian" bloggers themselves. Some of the manospherian bloggers and their commentators make such chilling pronouncements, evince such utter lack of empathy and such endless wells of rage, that it's hard to deny they exhibit sociopathic tendencies. Of course, they're doing so, in most cases, under the cloak of anonymity. Part of the threat of being "doxxed" in this 'sphere is that the disparity between their online and offline personas is so great that they have much to lose by being attached to the opinions they fearlessly share online. They are well aware that by being doxxed, they will be exposed as freaks, objects of scorn, pity, and fear, to the very people they depend on most.
Of course, despite the handles they hide behind, the active participants inevitably drop clues when they refer to their "real" lives, and from these scattered crumbs it's clear that some of them occupy positions of considerable authority and public trust. (It's enough to keep a person up at night!)
On the other hand, the same anti-social traits that make them "scary" (or at least damned peculiar) as individuals also keep them immobilized as a social or political group. As the recent frenzy of doxxing and smearing proves, the most popular bloggers, despite being charismatic enough to generate followers, cannot form the kinds of strong alliances that would allow them to organize an effective campaign or exert much influence on society in general. They can only wreak havoc on each other, the unfortunate people in their immediate circle (i.e., spouses and children), or upon targets that they perceive are lone, weak, and unable to retaliate (although I think Paul Elam of AVfM may have seriously miscalculated when he decided to take on Prof. Mercier).
Is it possible that the "manosphere" is a symptom, not of some broad-seated social malaise, but of the internet giving the sociopaths who have always existed a loud (albeit rather impotent) "voice?"
Note bene: Now I am in no way suggesting that everyone who has taken "the Red Pill" is sociopathic. In fact, most of the traffic on those sites is probably coming from very young disaffected youth who are looking for answers, an outlet to safely vent their frustrations, or a forum in which to entertain their fantasies of dominance. A recent reddit survey indicates that the majority of respondents who characterized themselves as MRAs are between the ages of 17-20, white, and, while politically "extremely conservative," are not religious. Is it overly optimistic to trust that as they gain experience, intelligence, and find their paths in life, they will wander away from these dark recesses and integrate themselves into the mainstream?
See also Is Roosh a Sociopath?
One of the differences appears to be that sociopaths tend to act out in controlled, premeditated ways, to indulge in "calculated or opportunistic violence," and are "often social predators." Psychopaths, on the other hand, tend to be impulsive, and more likely to run afoul of law enforcement. So I will continue to use the term "sociopathic" to describe many of the behaviors I have observed by reading the manosphere.
We are learning that sociopaths are more common than previously acknowledged, and they often function at very high levels. I've read several articles or books in the past year written by people who identify as sociopaths. There is even considerable interest in whether, and in what ways, sociopaths serve society or whether sociopathy is an evolutionarily advantageous trait. It's a topic that the manosphereans themselves occasionally discuss, often with some anxiety.
Personally, I have known two people in my life that I suspect were sociopaths, one a (now deceased) member of my own family. Intelligent sociopaths perform "normalcy" so well that in the context of superficial relationships, their sociopathy is not detectable. So it is reasonable to assume that most of them walk amongst us unrecognized.
And that's probably true of many of the "manospherian" bloggers themselves. Some of the manospherian bloggers and their commentators make such chilling pronouncements, evince such utter lack of empathy and such endless wells of rage, that it's hard to deny they exhibit sociopathic tendencies. Of course, they're doing so, in most cases, under the cloak of anonymity. Part of the threat of being "doxxed" in this 'sphere is that the disparity between their online and offline personas is so great that they have much to lose by being attached to the opinions they fearlessly share online. They are well aware that by being doxxed, they will be exposed as freaks, objects of scorn, pity, and fear, to the very people they depend on most.
Of course, despite the handles they hide behind, the active participants inevitably drop clues when they refer to their "real" lives, and from these scattered crumbs it's clear that some of them occupy positions of considerable authority and public trust. (It's enough to keep a person up at night!)
On the other hand, the same anti-social traits that make them "scary" (or at least damned peculiar) as individuals also keep them immobilized as a social or political group. As the recent frenzy of doxxing and smearing proves, the most popular bloggers, despite being charismatic enough to generate followers, cannot form the kinds of strong alliances that would allow them to organize an effective campaign or exert much influence on society in general. They can only wreak havoc on each other, the unfortunate people in their immediate circle (i.e., spouses and children), or upon targets that they perceive are lone, weak, and unable to retaliate (although I think Paul Elam of AVfM may have seriously miscalculated when he decided to take on Prof. Mercier).
Is it possible that the "manosphere" is a symptom, not of some broad-seated social malaise, but of the internet giving the sociopaths who have always existed a loud (albeit rather impotent) "voice?"
Note bene: Now I am in no way suggesting that everyone who has taken "the Red Pill" is sociopathic. In fact, most of the traffic on those sites is probably coming from very young disaffected youth who are looking for answers, an outlet to safely vent their frustrations, or a forum in which to entertain their fantasies of dominance. A recent reddit survey indicates that the majority of respondents who characterized themselves as MRAs are between the ages of 17-20, white, and, while politically "extremely conservative," are not religious. Is it overly optimistic to trust that as they gain experience, intelligence, and find their paths in life, they will wander away from these dark recesses and integrate themselves into the mainstream?
See also Is Roosh a Sociopath?
Thursday, April 17, 2014
This Could Be Dangerous For Me
Here's a clip of Emily Davison throwing herself under the King's horse, an act of suicidal defiance that is credited with helping win the vote for women in the UK:
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Studies Show Trolls Often Sadists
Well, that's hardly surprising, is it?
What surprised me is that that any psychological research had been done on internet trolls. Here's a link to a Mother Jones report published a few weeks ago.
UPDATE: And in related news, This Ruthless World explains why some people who make "stupid jokes" anonymously need to be identified and sharply brought to heel.
What surprised me is that that any psychological research had been done on internet trolls. Here's a link to a Mother Jones report published a few weeks ago.
UPDATE: And in related news, This Ruthless World explains why some people who make "stupid jokes" anonymously need to be identified and sharply brought to heel.
Monday, April 14, 2014
An Open Letter to Sunshine Mary
You may never see this, but I'll post anyway.
I know you gloated when I was doxxed and my name was smeared, and I know you think my blog is "batshit" (and you know I thought yours was too), but believe me when I say, with utmost sincerity, that I am sorry to read this attack on you.
Your attacker didn't reveal anything new to anyone, really. He certainly didn't "prove" you were a fraud and he sure didn't prove you were "dangerous" or merited a full frontal assault of this nature. By violating a basic tenet of internet discourse -- respecting people's rights to post anonymously, to have a voice on the internet without compromising their personal lives -- your attacker simply demonstrated once more his weak and ruthless character. Anyone reading his post can see that he is motivated by envy of your success, self-hatred, and (I am sorry to point this out to a Red Pill Woman), his own deep-seated misogyny.
Believe it or not, I hope you'll come back. Your blog was very popular and provided a lot of entertainment to people, regardless which side of the fence they were on.
I won't promise to read what you write, and I can't promise that if I do read your posts I won't gleefully shred them to pieces, but I absolutely support your right to express your beliefs without fear of reprisal.
CORRECTION: SSM did not describe my blog as "batshit" (see comment below). Although if she had, it would be entirely within her rights to do so!
I know you gloated when I was doxxed and my name was smeared, and I know you think my blog is "batshit" (and you know I thought yours was too), but believe me when I say, with utmost sincerity, that I am sorry to read this attack on you.
Your attacker didn't reveal anything new to anyone, really. He certainly didn't "prove" you were a fraud and he sure didn't prove you were "dangerous" or merited a full frontal assault of this nature. By violating a basic tenet of internet discourse -- respecting people's rights to post anonymously, to have a voice on the internet without compromising their personal lives -- your attacker simply demonstrated once more his weak and ruthless character. Anyone reading his post can see that he is motivated by envy of your success, self-hatred, and (I am sorry to point this out to a Red Pill Woman), his own deep-seated misogyny.
Believe it or not, I hope you'll come back. Your blog was very popular and provided a lot of entertainment to people, regardless which side of the fence they were on.
I won't promise to read what you write, and I can't promise that if I do read your posts I won't gleefully shred them to pieces, but I absolutely support your right to express your beliefs without fear of reprisal.
CORRECTION: SSM did not describe my blog as "batshit" (see comment below). Although if she had, it would be entirely within her rights to do so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)