Tuesday, March 12, 2019

#115: The Long Defeat


Original Artwork: http://mattiasfahlbergdesign.com/
Quote from JJR Tolkein's Galadriel

The world is going to end someday.

That's not a metaphor, y'all, it's a scientific fact. I'm not trying to be a downer, or to scare anyone, I'm just saying; 

Someday our star will expand and engulf this tiny planet we call home. 

And maybe humanity will survive it and maybe we won't, and maybe we'll have long since killed ourselves off because we scorched the planet with CO2. Who knows? The point is, the Earth will not last forever.

Conventional wisdom says the universe won't last forever, either. The science is still out on that one, so I can't say for sure, and maybe, even if the science were in, it might be wrong. We just don't know enough about the universe itself to say for certain. But for a long time it was assumed (and some still believe) that the universe will someday run out of energy, and it will stop.

And maybe collapse back in on itself and explode into a new universe?

But maybe not.

In fact, there's an author who wrote an entire YA fantasy series around this premise. Diane Duane writes about young wizards, and in the opening pages of her first book, So You Want to Be a Wizard, she lays it out for them.


As one renowned Senior Wizard has remarked, "Entropy has us outnumbered."
No matter how much preserving we do, the Universe will eventually die. But it will last longer because of our efforts--and since no one knows for sure whether another Universe will be born from the ashes of this one, the effort seems worthwhile.


Pretty heavy for a kid's book, right? I read this for the first time when I was 13 or so, and the impact of what was said was not lost on me. Duane wasn't done, though. She had another quote that hit me like a falling rock.


"There are no prizes for the service of life--except life itself."


And that, my friends, was my introduction to the idea of the long defeat.

I didn't know it at the time. All I knew when I was thirteen was that my parents had spent ten years in service to the poor, the beaten, and the hungry, only to be reviled and cast out by the church that claimed that very service was the highest calling for a Christian. They hadn't just "not gotten" a prize, they had actively been given the opposite of a prize. And I was mad about it. I was so mad about it, I'm still mad, 27 years later. I'll probably be mad until the day I die.

But something clicked in me when I read that book. And years later, when I read this quote by Dr. Paul Farmer, I knew what that something was.

We want to be on the winning team, but at the risk of turning our backs on the losers? 

No, it's not worth it. So you fight the long defeat.


The long defeat is a moral philosophy, and it's pervasive through both theological writings and common cultural narratives. It's the idea that you don't pick your side based on who will win. You pick your side based on what is right, and then you accept--deep in your bones--that your side is going to lose.

You're going to lose because you've sided with the poor, and the oppressed, and that means you have no power.

You're going to lose because you've sided with the sick and the dying, and that means your time is limited.

You're going to lose because you've sided with those that are reaching for a goal so distant it seems unattainable. And it will be.

You're going to lose because we don't live in a fantasy world. "Yippee kai yay, motherfucker," will not actually help you win against insurmountable odds.

But you fight anyway. You know you aren't going to get a prize. You know you're going to lose. And it won't just be you. It will be everyone at your side, who also chose to fight that fight, and in some ways watching them lose will be even harder than losing yourself. 

 But you do it anyway.

Janusz Korczak did it when he refused to leave his orphans, even as they were marched to their deaths. Instead he held the hand of one of the littlest, and tried to make sure the children weren't frightened.

Janusz Korczak and the orphans
Alexander Akimov did it when he stayed at Chernobyl during the meltdown, to help mitigate the damage. He knew the plant was lost, knew that tens of thousands were going to die, but he also knew fewer would die if he slowed the reaction.

The ruins
The four chaplains did it on the SS Dorchester when they calmly helped evacuate as many sailors as they could, including giving up their own life jackets to four lucky men, before going down with the 600 remaining souls on board the ship.
The four chaplains
You fight the long defeat because every moment you fight is a moment that brings some glimmer of hope. Because every pebble that doesn't rain down in the rock slide might mean that someone doesn't die, even if hundreds of others do. You fight because you're not trying to win, you're trying to help prevent the moment when someone else loses.

Everything about this philosophy is contained in the beautiful and heart wrenching principle song of Man of La Mancha.




You fight the long defeat because the world is better for it. Even when you lose. The world is still better.

And you fight because you don't know what will grow from your struggles. 

Henrietta Lacks died from cancer in 1951, at age 31. She lost her fight. 

But while she was fighting, researchers took a biopsy of her cells, and developed the world's first immortalized cell line. 


Henrietta Lacks
Henrietta Lacks lost.

But without her, we would not have eradicated polio.

Quote by Lin Manuel Miranda

For all that we call it the long defeat, we do not know what will grow from our legacy. Because perhaps the universe will not die. Perhaps the moral arc does bend towards justice. Martin Luther King, Jr died before he saw his dream become a reality, but my white son has a best friend who is a black girl, and that means something.

It may not mean victory. But it means that the world is better because we strive, with our last ounce of courage.

Because we fight the long defeat.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

#114: I Respect Your Boundaries, You Just Don't Know What You Want; a tale of online dating

Alright y'all, have I got a STORY FOR YOU!

It all began this morning, with an innocent enough notification from OKC. 

Someone liked me! 

Now, I'm pretty much past being excited by this particular notification.  In fact, upon seeing it I generally sigh, and slowly thumb open the app, with the hope that this time--THIS TIME--it will be a man who has a decent grasp of the basic methods of communication and nothing on his profile ranting about how "women just won't ever give a nice guy a chance!"

The hope is small, but it's there, and that's why I keep opening the notifications.

Someday I'll learn.

ANYWAY...

This time there was a dude who had actually messaged me!  Always a good sign.  He had silver hair and a nice face and skimming his profile I saw that he had some general indicators of brains and all that was going well until I saw THIS:



Okay, setting aside the fact that he feels the need to brag about brushing his teeth...   He lied about his age on the form, to bypass people's filters?  And then he had the OVER INFLATED BALLSACK to say that he was genuine?

I did a quick check on the profile (as I had not actually paid attention to the age) to discover:


Our boy here listed himself as 35.

THIRTY-FIVE.

(Oh, and lest you think worse of him than I intend, that wasn't his first picture.  His first picture was actually his face, but as I am trying to be respectful of his anonymity I figured that was wrong to use since it would just be a big red circle so instead I used his SECOND picture which was this.  I mean, I'm gonna be ragging on him a lot, here, and I don't feel like I need to go out of my way to misrepresent the man by implying that he was shirtless in his FIRST profile pic.)

Anyway, back to the story.

I figure you all know me well enough to know that, given the option between asking someone why they're being an asshole, or letting it slide, I'm always gonna ask why they're being an asshole.  So I went ahead and messaged him back, with the following:

Yeah, I know, there's a typo.  Sue me.

All things considered I thought that was a fairly gentle confrontation.  I mean, I didn't call him names or anything.  I just pointed out that he was misrepresenting himself in order to circumvent a woman's right to outline her preferences and that that was some SUPER SHADY shit not to mention SHALLOW AS HELL.

But without the caps.

I legit thought he'd block me and I'd never hear from him again, because normally this is the way of men online, but no...  No my precious loves, this one was one of those guys who wants you to understand that the shady shit he has done is, in fact, not shady at all and he is actually a REALLY, REALLY GREAT GUY.

And so came the response:


Right, so... I guess he's trying to say that I was wrong?  Because ACTUALLY he's just saying that a woman's age criteria is arbitrary.  How silly of me.  Clearly he wasn't saying he knew better than her what she wanted.  He's just saying she's WRONG to want it.

HOW THE FUCK HAVE I BEEN SO MISLED?

And he didn't lie!  He lied and then admitted it.  Totally different thing.

I also love his "deep substance" comment.  Honey child, I know plenty of PhD's AND pianists, and while some of them are deep their depth doesn't STEM from that. 

So, I haven't messaged him back.  I know a lost soul when I see one.  But as this rumbled around in my brain I found I had so much more to say.  Not TO him, you understand, but rather ABOUT him. 

Him, and all his ilk.

First, let's address the violation of boundaries.  And yeah, we're gonna call it that.  Because I don't give a shit what you actually think about someone's criteria for dating.  You don't like their criteria?  You're welcome to not like them.  You're welcome to find them shallow, or elitist, or racist, or agist--WHATEVER--if their criteria puts them in that category.  But that doesn't mean you get to lie to them to get them to give you a chance.

LYING IN ORDER TO GET A CHANCE WITH SOMEONE WHO WOULDN'T HAVE OTHERWISE GIVEN YOU A CHANCE IS STILL FUCKED UP, NO MATTER HOW FUCKED UP THEIR OWN PREJUDICES ARE.

Like, is this really a conversation we still have to have?  Further more, if they really ARE that shallow/elitist/racist/agist... WHY DO YOU WANT A CHANCE WITH THEM, ANYWAY?

I MEAN FOR GOD'S SAKE, I CAN'T HIT THE CAPS LOCK ANY HARDER SO PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BEING SO FUCKING DUMB.

*pant*pant*pant*

Okay.  So, people have boundaries, mkay?  And as long as their boundaries are really boundaries (as defined by choices they make for themselves and about themselves and their own person) and not an attempt to control others (as defined by trying to say your own choices should impact what someone else is allowed to do when it has nothing to do with you) then leave them the fuck alone!  Let them die in their insular little bubble or whatever. 

My favorite part of all this, of course, is that I can only imagine what Mr Deep Substance would say if a woman claimed to be "fit" and then he found out she was actually "overweight".  And she said she hadn't lied, she just didn't want to be judged on something arbitrary...



Just... just...

Okay.  I'm calm. 

I'M CALM, OKAY?

Anyway, now let's talk about the reality of age brackets.

One of the humorous things about this guy is that he almost didn't make it inside MY age filter.  Not because he's too old, but because he lists himself as too young.  I don't search for guys more than five years younger than me.  I probably wouldn't refuse to date one if I met him some other way, but I'll be real, 32 would be *pushing* it for me.  It is hard enough to find a man of maturity and self-possession, I don't need to make it harder by searching among the infants. 

Now, I'm not saying they don't exist, but I do not know any women who refuse to date men their own age.  I know very few women who won't at least consider 5-10 years up.  But I know a lot of women, like me, who do not want to date babies.

So, this guy (who, remember, I'm placing at 48) has probably lied his way out of dating a lot of women his own age.  He's probably lied his way out of dating women five years his junior.  He's probably even lied his way out of dating at least a handful of women a decade younger than him.  All for the chance that some 20 something will look at his profile and decide to take a chance on a guy more than twice her age, AFTER HE HAS LIED TO HER. 

But it's fine.  I bet they'll have so much in common, won't they?  I mean, he's got that amazing hygiene going for him...

Listen, friends, if someone pulls bullshit on you, remember that it's bullshit.  And if you say "hey, this is bullshit" and they say "oh, you know, I never thought of it that way" then it's fine.  They just made a mistake, and we all make mistakes.

But if they try to explain to you that, in fact, that stinking pile of excrement is not bullshit?  Consider writing a blog post about what a shallow asshole they are.   Then share it with me.  And we can march forward together in single solidarity.



#113: Baby Birding


Nature is full of many wonders, and many mysteries--

ooooo... so preeeeetty...

Aaaaaaand also many super gross things.  Like, wicked gross.  The number of species with parents who pre-digest food and then vomit into their children's mouths is squick inducing. 

(And I ain't even gonna get into koalas.  You wanna know about koalas, you just go watch True Facts.)

but don't say I didn't warn you

It's not a strictly avian phenomenon, but I think we're all familiar with the action among birds.  Which is why, when my friends and I were discussing the labor of managing and satisfying emotional entitlement, I asked couldn't we please call it baby birding, for short.

Confused?

Lemme 'splain.

We all know that there are people who are shit at dealing with their own emotions, right?  Frequently this category of human is just referred to as "men," but that's not 100% fair.  There are men who handle their emotions, and there are women who don't.  There's a cultural bias leaning towards women being the emotional work horses, and I'm plenty mad about that, but I don't want to reinforce the bias here.  The point is that, despite trends, people who can't handle their own emotions come in all flavors.  So, since I want a short hand that doesn't double down on cultural bullshit, I need to come up with one that is free of gender implications.

Now, I came up with a lot of clever options for this.  But, in the end, I decided simple was best.  Therefore, for the remainder of this post, people who don't handle their own emotional baggage will be known as "assholes".

Short and to the point, isn't it?

Anyway, we've all met assholes.  Some of us (I'm not pointing any fingers but I probably don't need to) are assholes ourselves.  If you're not conditioned to spot when someone is being an asshole, let me offer you some prime asshole examples:

If you are engaging with a person who treats all negative emotions as though they were anger, and directs that anger at you until you help them process the root emotion, that person is an asshole. 
If you are engaging with a person who acts as though your behavior and their emotional response to that behavior are both your responsibility, that person is an asshole.


If you are engaging with a person who, when you bring a problem to their attention, requires that you deal with their emotional state over being told something is a problem before they can even begin to address the actual problem, that person is an asshole.


If you are engaging with a person who expects you to have all the neutrality and insight of a therapist, without having any emotional response or problems of your own, that person is an asshole.


There are more, but you get the gist.  The defining characteristic of assholes is that they don't want to do the big, hard work of gnawing through their emotional gristle themselves.  They want to dump it on you, have you chew it up into small, easily digestible bits, and then spit it back into their mouths a little bit at a time, so they can absorb it slowly.

They want you to baby bird their feelings for them.


And here's the thing.  In some cases, baby birding emotions is the right call.  When one is raising children, for instance.  They are totally assholes, but they are assholes for a very good reason, and by baby birding them now you are teaching them to eat their own meat in due time. 

Between adults it is more complicated, but even then there are times you might choose, for good and proper reasons, to baby bird it.  Say your friend is having an emotional breakdown, and you've chosen to be one of their support people; that's a good time to baby bird everything. 

thank you, Robot Hugs

But it's important to note that we're talking about an extraordinary circumstance, combined with a purposeful choice on your part.  If it's a daily part of life, or you find yourself forced into doing it without making that choice...

Nuh-uh. 

Fuck that asshole.