Facebook friends, electronic pets, and the disconnect from real relationships…

Ah. Sounds like the title of some sociology paper, doesn’t it? I am not writing a paper—just ranting about yet another annoyance in my everyday life.
I really dislike Facebook. It gives a false sense of popularity (He has 250 friends on his Facebook page!) It allows you to be a virtual peeping Tom--you can view all kinds of photos of a person’s ‘private’ life. And my personal favorite—you can keep up to date on someone’s daily activities without actually having to talk to them.
No wonder why people have hundreds of ‘friends’ on their pages—it doesn’t take any real work to know that many people. It requires far less time—to have a real friend, you would actually have to go places with them, talk to them, and be alone with them. It’s so easy to simply skim the surface when you know many eyes will be reading the words you share on someone’s Facebook wall. It is faster—and less demanding—to reply to a posting on a person’s status with some goofy comment than it is to actually have coffee with them for 2 hours. With Facebook, you can reply to a Facebook page status while you’re getting your coffee and chatting on your cell phone—all at the same time.

And then there are the fake pets that people are snapping up this holiday season. The Zhu Zhu Pet gives a kid the chance to have her own pet hamster—it plays, it makes noises, and it’s cute. Yep, her own pet, except for the fact that it’s not real. You don’t have to worry about feeding your Zhu Zhu Pet, and there is none of that messy cage cleaning. You don’t have to listen to the annoying clicking of the water bottle all night, or that dreadful wheel that all real hamsters love so much. You don’t even have to worry about handling it gently, or what you will do when it dies—as all real pets do. It’s the best of both worlds—a neat furry toy (isn’t that what pets are, after all?) without all the responsibility and expense. And when you’re bored of it, and don’t want it anymore, you can through it away or donate it to the thrift store (then you can feel good about helping the needy).

So what do I find so objectionable about virtual friends and electronic pets? They are not real. They are all the fun parts of a friendship and pet ownership, without the real work, emotional investment, or difficult things that come with an actual relationship. When I have a friend in the non-virtual world, I have to make time for them. I can’t just text them while I am with other people or doing something I would ‘rather’ do. I have to take time out of my day to be with them, or catch them up—personally—by phone or email. I can’t just swap comments back and forth and leave it at that. And sometimes we argue. Sometimes I say weird things and have to apologize. Yes, I suppose that happens on Facebook too, but it is different when you have to look someone in the eyes, or even hear the disappointment in their voice when you’re talking to them. And while I love being a pet parent, it takes work. It takes sacrifice—and I learned that as a kid with my first real pet, not a stuffed animal. I learned about cleaning up after my pet, feeding them, and sadly, about loss when that animal died. I learned to love again with the next pet, and about loss when that pet also died. And as an adult, I have learned about putting the needs of my pets first—it would be nice to have certain luxuries, but I have animals to feed, take to the vet, and buy supplies and toys for. Sometimes I even have to pay a sitter to take care of them. I am not complaining—I am simply arguing that a real relationship—whether it’s with another person, an animal, or even the planet itself, takes work, sacrifice, and often involves pain. But the benefits are bountiful.
By the way, if I get one more virtual tree to "plant", I might lose my mind.

My thoughts on health care reform...

I have received a lot of emails, news links, and the like all summer long regarding the health care issue. They span the supportive spectrum, and of course include those who are absolutely against reform.
I have a simple response to all of those things: do to others what you want them to do to you (Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount).
I want to see the doctor when I am sick, and I want access to affordable medicine. If I want that, then who I am I do demand that it be denied to my neighbors, regardless of their employment, legal, or financial status?
You may say that health care is not a right. But think about this--everyone in our country has the right to receive an education. What would be the point of educating a mind that we have no intention of caring for medically?

I may be a child molester…

Yes. At least that is what the members of Concerned Women for America believe. Why? Because I support equal rights for homosexual couples. According to the culture and values section of the website of Concerned Women for America—a dubious name at best, since this group hardly represents the majority of women in the U.S.—people who support gays and lesbians in any way should not work with children:

"When people have views supporting homosexuality, they should not be involved with youth in any way, period. Because they:
· will provide inaccurate, misleading information to kids;
· may limit a student's opportunity to hear warnings about the behavior;
· may advocate or model inappropriate behavior;
· may be directly involved in the molestation of kids themselves; or
· may be in a position to allow others to do so."

With beliefs like this, it is little wonder why gay marriage is facing so much opposition. If you are told that people who just support gay rights—not people who are gay themselves, but simply support them—are either child molesters or are abettors to child molestations, then what would you think of actual gay people?
Or consider this nugget on the CWA website, a fictional account of Josh (who is confused about his sexuality):

What Happens to Josh?
"So what becomes of [Josh and those like him]? They seldom hear another viewpoint; they are seldom approached by Christian peers who will show them a different way. It's not that our Christian kids don't want to; they don't have enough information and are too intimidated to challenge the easily provoked pro-"gay" advocates.
So, Josh will probably go ahead and attend a local "gay" community group; then in high school, join the high school "GSA" ("gay"-straight alliance, the name of many homosexual clubs). He probably will pair up with an older homosexual and begin homosexual sex. His parents, anxious to be politically correct, won't object and will eventually come to accept his "lifestyle."
Josh's future probably holds a revolving door of sexual contacts, with his first visit to a clinic to be treated for a sexually transmitted disease at around age 17. Then, if he's typical, he'll be treated annually for an STD of some type. Oh, and all those middle school insecurities over appearance have been dispelled. He's turned into a drop-dead gorgeous young man, but he has no interest in the appreciative glances of young women. He's too much in demand at the "gay" bars and bathhouses.
He is already drinking heavily, smoking and doing recreational drugs. Somewhere along the line, he'll have several longer-term boyfriends, and may even move in with one or two of them. Their break-ups will happen after six months or a year, and be spectacular events punctuated with drama, screaming fights and threats of self-harm, contributing to the high rates of domestic violence cited for "gay" males.
He will go to a counselor for treatment of depression, anxiety or an eating disorder. Seeking some peace and stability, he'll join a "gay"-friendly denomination like the Metropolitan Community Church. Along the way, he may well become HIV-positive. In his 30s, he will start to have relationships with boys who are 16 and 17, just as someone did when he was a teen. He may even transmit the HIV virus to one or more of them.
Josh is likely to die early, probably before 55 and very likely in his 40s. His grandmother will cry at his funeral, knowing he would have made a great father and even grandfather. But it won't happen for him.
This was happiness? This is freedom? Why can't Josh be told the rest of the story before it's too late?"

If you read “facts” such as these, it is easy to see why Proposition 8 found the support that it did. What parent would intentionally and whole-heartedly support their gay child when they are destined for so much misery, abuse, and an early death? Or, since these same folks believe that gays are made, not born, why would you allow your child to choose such a destructive lifestyle? The CWA believes that merely supporting gay individuals creates more of “them”:

"Can people, children in this case, become homosexuals by exposure to certain ideas and behavior? In other words, can a person who would not otherwise become homosexual start the behavior, come to prefer it and form a habitual addiction?
Can a society create more homosexuals? The answer quite clearly is yes. That is how current homosexuals, in fact, came to be. There is no credible evidence for a genetic origin for homosexuality. That may come as a surprise to many people, but it's true. It's even more astonishing when one realizes how many influential groups and people now accept homosexuality as inborn for some. But when you look behind the rhetoric, you find that there is nothing but wishful thinking. For an excellent paper debunking this myth, see Culture and Family Institute's Special Report Born or Bred.
New research has revealed what many have predicted for years because of the media culture's constant promotion of homosexuality: More and more Americans, especially youth, are experimenting with same-sex sexual acts. A report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) shows that among people surveyed in 2002, 11 percent of the females have had a "same-sex" sexual experience. This is up from 4 percent in a similar report in 1992. Among just teen and young adult females, the number was even higher-14 percent. Among males, homosexual experimentation increased to 6 percent in 2002 compared to 4.9 percent in 1992.4
Despite the incredibly well-documented destructive outcomes from homosexuality,
this unprecedented trend among young people is occurring with few parental objections.
People, especially the young, can be seduced into homosexual behavior and have their identities molded around the homosexual lifestyle through a combination of persuasion and circumstances that may include the following:
· being convinced homosexuality is acceptable;
· reading or viewing explicit homosexual pornography;
· having a close relationship with a peer who is practicing homosexuality;
· admiring an older teacher or mentor who is homosexual;
· attending homosexual social venues (a "gay" club, bar, church youth group);
· being homosexually molested;
· having parents who espouse homosexuality or engage in homosexual activism;
lacking strong ties to a church that remains faithful to the historic Christian faith, and hostility toward traditional views."

Even the church is nailed in this case, if they are not “Bible-based”. Apparently, a church cannot be both Jesus-loving and gay supporting. In fact, only a strong, faith-based environment will encourage children to abstain from the gay lifestyle:

"Strong religious faith, especially traditional Christian morality, often acts as a protective barrier to the development of homosexual desire. When children grow up trusting God as the Designer of masculinity and femininity, and if they are not sexually molested or have their innocence assaulted by other traumatic events, their feelings will be channeled normally toward heterosexual sex within marriage as an obvious and desirable goal. The truth imparted by the Holy Spirit in young believers hinders the harmful absorption of the culture's deceit about homosexuality as well as other temptations."

Until such myths, bad science, and discriminatory religious teachings are given up, our gay and lesbian friends will continue to be barred from living a full life in this country. And some people still don’t think this has anything to do with civil rights…

(Source for CWA quoted sections is http://www.cwfa.org/cfi/)

Godly Mothers are Worthy of Honor All Year Long…

That’s right. Or so says the sign in front of one of my least favorite churches in town. Godly mothers are worthy of honor—not loving atheist mothers, or supportive eco-friendly moms. Nope. There are two kinds of moms—godly, and “ungodly”.

Black and white statements like that frustrate me so. To begin, “godly” is a relative concept. A mom that I would think of as godly—say a woman who loves and supports her gay child, or who lets her child choose what religious tradition to follow, or who allows her children to develop as they see fit—would not necessarily be considered "godly" by others. But beyond that, statements like the one on that church sign paint an unrealistic image of motherhood. As one author put it, “[ideal mothers are] neo-June Cleaver corporate beauties you see in the mainstream parenting magazines” (Breeder, from the introduction). When I think of the stereotype of a “godly mother”, I think of a woman who waited to have her kids until after the wedding. She stays at home, reads her Bible and does her daily devotions. She keeps the house pristine, and always has a yummy (but healthy) snack waiting on the counter for when the kids get home. She doesn’t yell, she doesn’t cry, and lord knows she doesn’t curse. She is pretty, yet practical. She gets to all the soccer games, heads up the church play, gets the kids in bed, and still has the time and energy to have sex. Yep—the perfect mom.

Here’s what the moms we know are like: they sit in deep embarrassment as their kids throw stuff on the floor in the restaurant and show their chewed food to me (thanks Caleb—you crack me up!). They are running around with a schedule that makes me tired just to see it. They clip coupons, leave their homes in a state of constant upheaval, and have a sink of really dirty dishes. They let their laundry pile up, and they run out of essentials because they were too busy when they got off work to run over to Target. And yet, they clearly love their kids. They taxi them all over town, support them at their games and school programs, and some even find time to leave cookies and presents for me, their pet sitter.

And lets not forget the other kind of “mom”—the devoted, yet equally disheveled, pet parent. These moms are no different—pet toys scatter the floor in their homes, several pill bottles line the cabinet for the sick dog in the family, pet laundry piles up, and they too run out of essentials. We water their plants, scoop the litter boxes, and give out treats from our ‘stash’—what kind of sitters would we be if we didn’t carry treats at all times?—and bring in the newspaper that the van rolled over as it flew down the driveway before dawn.

Yep—my kind of moms. Not perfect, but devoted. What I would call “godly”.

Oh, and that picture at the top? It's of me--yet another tired, messy, overworked pet mom who also functions as a piece of furniture for one of our three cats...

Why do we still care about pageants?

It’s Friday. Five days ago, many turned their attention to yet another degrading ritual of western womanhood—the Miss USA Pageant. And while many just enjoyed ogling the poor contestants, I have been fuming all week about the comments made by two of the beauty queens.

Let’s begin with the more famous of the two—dear Miss California’s heartfelt, but not-so-intelligent response to the question about whether she believed all states should legalize gay marriage:

"Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. Um, we live in a land that you can choose same sex marriage or opposite marriage and, you know what, in my country and in, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there. But that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be between a man and a woman." (Thanks Wikipedia).

What? The final sentence would have sufficed. In any case, Miss California now believes she lost to Miss North Carolina because she gave a politically incorrect answer. I’ll come back to that, though.

The winner, the aforementioned Miss NC, made an equally offensive statement when asked her “big” question of the night, but only my beloved Allan Combs (who for some reason is only aired at 11pm on our local conservative talk radio station) seems to have addressed the gaff. She was asked what she would do with a time machine. Her response? Go back to the 1950’s—because it was such a great time, so peaceful, and all about families.

Really? Let’s look at that peaceful thing. If you were black or even gay, my guess is that life was far from peaceful. Those pain-in-the-butt racist segregation laws? Not peaceful. What about all those beatings, burning crosses, and lynchings? Not my idea of a quiet way to spend the day.

And family? Well, in the 1950’s, no one would have given a damn about what Miss NC would do with a time machine, let alone whether or not she wanted to go to college or stay at home and cook and have children. Nope—her life would have been about family, and probably not much else. Of course, that only applied to middle and upper class white women. Women of color and the poor always had to balance a job with family responsibilities.

So give me a break about the 50’s idealism. I, too, sometimes fall into that “romantic” notion of history—but then I remind myself that women in most cultures had no rights, people of color were not considered worthy to participate in the fruits of our freedom, and even animals had a worse deal than they do today.

But what about Miss California? Well, I hope she did lose due to her response. Being out of step with supporting gay marriage is no different from opposing civil rights in general—because that is precisely what it is. It would be like a 1950’s Miss USA Contestant saying that she supported segregation because “that's how I was raised and that's how I think that it should be…”

Separate and unequal…

Call it whatever you want, just not marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman—to call it something else is to change the meaning of the word, and it has always meant one thing.

That is the argument I found myself listening to on a talk radio show this morning while I cleaned out Stormie’s playpen. My first thought was that historically, marriage has meant many things—sometimes involving more than just two people (eastern cultures, anyone?). But what I really fixated on was the whole concept of naming the joining of two gay people something other than marriage. A look back at history will help validate my concerns.

Think back to segregation. Separate but equal. But we know it never was. Public accommodations—from schools to hospitals—were never the same between white establishments and black establishments. The places reserved for blacks were consistently inferior—despite what Justice Henry Brown argued on behalf of the Supreme Court in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case: “…the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority [is a fallacy]. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it” (Don’t Know Much About History, pg 280). We know, however, that Justice Brown’s argument was the fallacy—not the perception or some collective ‘chip on the shoulder’ of the black community. Evidence of this is seen today in the ‘failed schools’ legislation that allows students from failing schools to have the opportunity to attend a better performing school; we no longer accept the idea that places like schools perform at the same level.

So, back to that marriage thing. If we don’t call a union between two adults, regardless of sexual orientation, a marriage, then whatever subsequent label we do give that union will inherently be inferior to marriage. How could it not? It won’t be a marriage—it will be something else. And perhaps that something else will create an opportunity to deny benefits—such as spousal privileges or access to programs such as social security upon the death of one partner—that one could argue are solely reserved for those who are married. Separate but equal terms for one of the most sacred commitments many of us will ever enter into? I think not.

Turn out the lights and enjoy a little darkness...

One thing I love to do when I am in a rural area at night is just stand with my head pointed upward. I am sure it looks silly, but I am so taken aback by the beauty of the heavens. Sadly, this is not a sight many city folk can enjoy. It is one of the major drawbacks of city (or even "town") life, and a reason why I am so desperate to be in the country as much as I can.
Light pollution is not just an aesthetic problem. It is dangerous--continuous light not only interferes with our sleep cycle, but it is a serious problem for animals as well (have you ever heard a lone bird singing out your window at 3 in the morning?). Every year, migrating birds find themselves lost amid the bright lights of a city that refuses to sleep--they fly in circles, confused, until they literally fall to their death from total exhaustion. Continuous light interferes with mating cycles of many animals as well. It is costly, wasteful, and detrimental to those we share our planet with.
On Saturday March 28th, the world will take a small step in the right direction (many communities have already done this, earning the label "dark sky community" for their rules governing darkness all year long). From 8:30pm until 9:30pm, local time, people all over the world will be turning out the lights so that our planet may have a break. I hope you will join us and turn your lights out, too. Light a candle...read a book...meditate...or even just go to bed--a good night sleep never hurt, and like darkness itself, many of us get too little of it.
Enjoy the night!

The Carousel of Charity…

If you have gone to Disney World, there’s a good chance that you know the ride “The Carousel of Progress”. Even if you don’t, it’s easy to understand—the ride moves around a circular stage, each set depicting another era of American life. No era is better than the other per se; it’s just that what you see at the time is what gets your attention.

I see charity like that. I don’t view people, causes, or events on a ladder. You know what I mean—I heard someone say it just this morning on NPR. A woman who had been through a disaster was being interviewed, and when asked what she would do next, she replied that she would be caring for family, as they were her number one priority.

I have a problem with that. Taking care of “you” and “yours” above all else is perhaps what got us into this crummy economic crisis to begin with. We are always thinking of just what is on the top of our list, and if the things on the bottom cannot be taken care of, oh well. At least we cared for “us” and “ours”. But the problem with that is the denial that life is indeed like a carousel, and good times/bad times are bound to shift around. We cannot simply focus on who or what means most to us. The need that is on the visible side of the carousel is what should be tended to first. I used my family as an example for my friend Sena. They are extremely important to me, but if I am on my way home to be with them and I see a person or animal in need along the way, then at that moment, that person’s situation supersedes any need of my family’s. But the reverse can also be true. One day I was headed out to walk a dog who had been in her crate for a few hours. Her need was important, but my dog Lucy superseded that when she had a massive seizure and I had to rush her to the vet. I got to my client’s house, but it was a bit later than usual.

Perhaps it is my Quaker faith that allows me to see the world on equal terms. I may want to do what feels good or is comfortable—such as napping on my couch—but if I know of a situation at hand, my needs must roll around on the carousel until next time.

What about yours?