I am posting this before fight time in order to go on record to predict Chuck will win by knockout no later than the 2nd round. I know this is an obvious pick, but after watching all the hype coming out of Rashad Evans on the UFC 88 countdown show, I just wanted to go on record with my pick. Yes, Evans has grown as a fighter over the last couple of years. He is a good grappler and has decent hands, but the guy barely handled Michael Bisping who dropped down to 185 because he was too small to make any real headway in the light-heavyweight division. Now, if Evans barely beat Bisping, that either means, Chuck would have a real battle on his hands to take out Bisping, or Evans really isn’t as good as he seems to think he is. Obviously, the truth lies closer to the latter. Maybe in time Evans will find himself among the top tier of the light-heavyweight division, that remains to be seen and wont happen until he has a solid win over a top 5 fighter, which he has not even stepped into the Octagon with to this date. For now though, I would say to Evans, save the hollow sounding hype and stop telling everyone how you are going to have your way with Chuck, and learn from the experience of fighting a top-tier fighter in a high pressure bout, and just keep honing your skills.
As for the rest of the matches, at least the ones I am interested in, I think Matt Hamill will upset Rich Franklin. He has too much ground and pound for Rich who is moving up to 2005 after a few years at middleweight. I pick Dan Henderson over Rousimar Palhares, in what will be the ugliest, grind it out fight of the night. It will be close, but I think Henderson knows he needs a victory over a solid opponent to get back into title contention. Other than that the rest of the fights don’t interest me that much one way or the other.
For now, throw some burgers on the grill, make sure the fridge has plenty of cold brew, and enjoy those fights tonight!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Too good to be 9?
I honestly can believe that this has finally happened, a 9-year-old is so much better than the rest of his piers that he must be banned from baseball. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3553475 Let’s not pretend that we couldn’t see this coming. You see, it all started with those stupid participation ribbons they started handing out to all the kids on each team even though they did nothing to deserve recognition. I was absolutely stunned to find this out several years ago when I enrolled my own son for baseball. His team won just a few games, only but one or two kids stood out by their play, yet at the end of the season all the parents were hit up for a $20 bill to pay for trophies and prizes. I of course had the temerity to ask, “why?” After all, back in the day, there was one trophy handed out at the end of the season, and that trophy went to the first place team, and the coach was the one who got to keep it. What was funny about that was, no one cared, rather, they all knew that was the way it was supposed to be. Fast forward a few years (okay, many, many more years) and imagine my surprise at having to fork over an extra $20 for participation awards for all the players on a bottom of the league team! What I failed to notice, was that this was the way of the “new generation.” The children of today apparently are all suffering from low self-esteem and they are in need of constant affirmation that they are “special” and deserving of awards for things they never worked hard to earn.
So now you see my point, right? We got here at this point where we are penalizing 9-year-olds because of superiority by making a practice of rewarding mediocrity. It started by telling all the kids they were good even if they were not, telling them they were valuable to the team even if they didn’t spend a moment outside of practice and games working to get better, and affirming their effort whether they played hard or not during the game. Once mediocrity is the norm, excellence will always end up being penalized, because as soon as someone stands out above everyone else, then he will be made to be a villain because he is damaging the self-esteem of all the other kids.
This unfortunate story ought to be a national wake-up call. We are rearing a generation of cry-babies and underachievers who are bloated with self-esteem while mediocre in performance. Don’t tell me that this mentality won’t spill out into other areas of life either, because it will. We are currently undergoing a cultural revolution in the work place and academy due to the effects of this “awards for all participants” mentality that has been practiced now for the last 15—20 years in this country. So, I for one am hopeful that this embarrassing national story over penalizing an overachiever will finally shame us into our senses and cause us to realize that the only way we will get better as a nation is if we only reward excellence in achievement and effort in order to motivate people to move out of mediocrity.
I say, let little Jericho play. So what if he strikes out every 9-year-old in his league. Maybe that will cause the rest of those kids to try harder so they can hit him next year when they are 10. In the mean time, as they make that long lonely walk from home plate to the dugout with a bat on their shoulder after striking out, they will learn an important lesson in life, that hard work and sharpened skill acquired through drilling the mechanics of a good swing, will not only help them get that bat on the ball, but will also be a lesson on how to get ahead in life.
So now you see my point, right? We got here at this point where we are penalizing 9-year-olds because of superiority by making a practice of rewarding mediocrity. It started by telling all the kids they were good even if they were not, telling them they were valuable to the team even if they didn’t spend a moment outside of practice and games working to get better, and affirming their effort whether they played hard or not during the game. Once mediocrity is the norm, excellence will always end up being penalized, because as soon as someone stands out above everyone else, then he will be made to be a villain because he is damaging the self-esteem of all the other kids.
This unfortunate story ought to be a national wake-up call. We are rearing a generation of cry-babies and underachievers who are bloated with self-esteem while mediocre in performance. Don’t tell me that this mentality won’t spill out into other areas of life either, because it will. We are currently undergoing a cultural revolution in the work place and academy due to the effects of this “awards for all participants” mentality that has been practiced now for the last 15—20 years in this country. So, I for one am hopeful that this embarrassing national story over penalizing an overachiever will finally shame us into our senses and cause us to realize that the only way we will get better as a nation is if we only reward excellence in achievement and effort in order to motivate people to move out of mediocrity.
I say, let little Jericho play. So what if he strikes out every 9-year-old in his league. Maybe that will cause the rest of those kids to try harder so they can hit him next year when they are 10. In the mean time, as they make that long lonely walk from home plate to the dugout with a bat on their shoulder after striking out, they will learn an important lesson in life, that hard work and sharpened skill acquired through drilling the mechanics of a good swing, will not only help them get that bat on the ball, but will also be a lesson on how to get ahead in life.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Bigfoot Proves Elusive Once Again
I have to say this was a real disappointment for me. My hopes were soaring high on August 15 with the press conference held at the Cabana Hotel in Palo Alto, California, thinking this finally might be “it.”http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=5583488&page=1 But no, hopes were dashed once again by two pranksters claiming to have finally captured irrefutable evidence of Bigfoot, when the “evidence” contained in a giant freezer turned out to be just a rubber gorilla suit. Now, I must admit that part of me thought it would be awesome if a bona fide Bigfoot had finally been discovered, though honestly, part of me was a little disappointed because the lack of a verifiable Bigfoot sighting kept us all in suspense and made everything more exciting, and if this was really it, then it might peel a bit of the luster off the Bigfoot mystique. I can personally attest to the fact, having grown up in the hill country of Northern California, that the legends are large and the tales are colorful about the supposed sights and sounds of Bigfoot. Hunters and campers alike tell of strange sounds in the night, unexplainably large footprints in the soft moist dirt, and large clumps of reddish-brown hair stuck on trees in the forest. If you drive through some of the more remote areas of No-Cal you will find that the legend lives on in road side stands and small ma and pop shops as a whole Bigfoot cottage industry has grown up around the legend and people are shamelessly profiting off this supposedly fury and wily creature. For now though, the legend is safe, the suspense is in tact, and Bigfoot is still on the loose. So all you hunters, hikers, and campers, a word to the wise, keep your eyes peeled and your digital cameras handy because you never know, the next time you hit the woods, maybe, just maybe, Bigfoot will finally slip up and you will come home with the proof that everyone has been waiting for. Good luck!
Monday, August 18, 2008
"Guy church": how evangelicals still dont get it
About a year ago we launched calvinontap.blogspot.com with the express intention of trying to have conversations with men which might in turn lead them to be open to have further conversations about Jesus. Basically the articles here range from current events, to Ultimate Fighting, to some basic philosophical issues, all cast in the form of a conversation you might have with another guy on a bar stool over a cold one. So, if you joined the conversation when this all started you are aware of the aim of this site, and if you are just tuning in, then go back and check out those key articles and get caught up to speed.
Naturally, given that our focus here is to engage other men in conversation that will end up having a spiritual focus, we are happy to hear that others are doing the same thing. After all, it is no secret that attendance of men at church is on the decline, at least in North America. On any given Sunday, over 60% of the people in the pews are women, about 90% of males who grow up in church leave it by the time they are 19 years old, and only roughly 30% of American men attend church on a regular basis. With those numbers in mind, of course we laud attempts of the local church to reach out to men. Given that build up, you might be surprised, that I almost pulled the tiny little hairs out of my neatly shaved head as I read the recent article in USA Today by Cathy Lynn Grossman entitled, “Guys are few in the pews: churches change to attract men.” http://http//www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-07-23-males-church_N.htm
In the following paragraphs I want to critique what I read and offer an alternative.
Now, to be fair, perhaps Miss Grossman is not an "initiated evangelical" and is simply reporting what she sees in the new evangelical trend of “guy friendly” churches, and, being uninitiated, is unable to perceive the deeper philosophical moorings of these churches. So as you read this critique you might keep that thought in mind. However, what she does report leaves you shaking your head once again, saying to yourself, “stupid evangelicals!” Honestly, how many gimmicks are these people going to try before they realize that gimmicks don’t work, and in fact, that gimmicks hurt the faith and build up even more obstacles for us to beat down before we can have a decent conversation with unbelievers?
Grossman appeals to the 121 Community Church in Grapevine, Texas, as a model for this new trend of “guy church” with a hearty masculine vibe. Initially, she focuses on the décor of the church, which of course is a significant part of their strategy for reaching men according to the pastor Ross Sawyer who says, “No pastels. No flowers. No sweet music. The tone is intentionally guy church.” So naturally since guys don’t like those things the floor is concrete, the walls are hunter green, and the ceiling is made of rough timber. Surely, most men don’t like pastels, flowers, and lame music, but is the problem with reaching men merely about cosmetics? The heavy focus on the cosmetic aspect already shows how superficial the approach is going to be.
Next, we are told that the new model “guy church” has a certain ethos. David Murrow, a leading “guy church” guru, explains in the advice he gives to pastors seeking to reach men what really captivates a pagan guy: infuse adventure, challenge, boldness, competition, hands-on communication, ferocity and fun" into congregational life. If you are wondering what that looks like, well, just listen to a report from a 2002 GodMen ministry event which includes the following shockingly foolish set of events: videos of karate fights, car chases and a song with lyrics urging, "No more nice guy, timid and ashamed … Grab a sword, don't be scared — be a man, grow a pair!" (I told you that you would be shaking your head and saying “stupid evangelicals!”) So, "action packed" is the key ethos needed to reach men.
Lastly, Grossman notes that “guy church” is intentionally relational. Now, here, I believe they are getting one component right. In order to reach guys, you have to spend some time hanging out and getting to know them. But once again, as you might already be able to predict, these evangelicals mess this up to. Churches seeking men in the Sun Belt region of America are choosing to reach men through a particular kind of relational event called a “Beast Feast.” Yes, a “Beast Feast.” Apparently, men of the church invite non-Christian men they know to come eat some wild meat that they have harvested while out hunting in the woods. Stop and think about it, this could almost be a good idea if it was in some guys back yard, they threw out the title “Beast Feast,” and they mixed in some cigars and good beer. But no, its at the church banquet hall, and its named “Beast Feast,” and you can bet there are no beers and cigars. Relationships are a great way to start reaching out to men, but stupid evangelical potlucks with ridiculous names are not.
Okay, anyone can be long on criticism, but being long on solutions is better. So, what would I propose? One, strip away every stupid evangelical sounding thing from your approach. The North American species of pagan male can smell a gimmick a mile away, and a stupid evangelical gimmick from 10 miles away. So, don’t do dumb, superficial things. That is my ethos rule. Two, build relationships with men the old fashioned way: at a back yard barbeque, on a local bar stool, or at the gym. That is where you are going to find men hanging out and probably willing, over time, to let you talk to them about “big picture” ideas. Here is where I like J.I. Packer's advice when he says (I am paraphrasing here from Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God), “you have to earn the right to present Christ to men by building a relationship of trust first.” Three, when you finally get men to come to church, just do church! You know for all the hype about how they are doing “guy church” with their guy friendly décor, these churches go back to doing the same lame things that drove men away in the first place: skits, videos, music, creative worship (and oh yeah, don’t forget the guy friendly name change of Vacation Bible School to “Bible Extreme”). Basically what Grossman describes is that churches have changed the tone, repainted the walls, torn up the carpet, and rearranged the furniture, but have not touched the substance.
Here is what we need to do to reach men once they get to church: stop being lame, and just do what the Bible says when you meet for worship. Make the preached word and the administration of the sacrament central. Every week reinforce the majesty and holiness of God by reading the law and corporately confessing sin. Tell men that their relationship with Jesus is not based on “feeling good” or even “cool” at church, nor is it based on how many “guy friendly” small group meetings they go to (in fact, be sure to systematically eliminate all small groups from your church!), but rather, it is based upon worshiping once a week with the whole church and partaking of Christ and his grace in the preached word and sacrament. Tell them there are no gimmicks, no extra works to perform, no Vacation Bible School (or Bible Extreme for the ones who have unfortunately been exposed to hip "guy churches") to be guilted into teaching, no church softball teams to be a part of in order to be a good Christian. Just tell the men that Christ is their justification, and that their relationship with him is strengthened every week at 10 a.m. on Sunday when God meets with His church and gives them the grace of Christ in the word and sacrament. That’s “guy church” that will make a difference, and the good news is, it wont just make a difference for guys, it will make a difference for everyone who comes and is a part of it.
Naturally, given that our focus here is to engage other men in conversation that will end up having a spiritual focus, we are happy to hear that others are doing the same thing. After all, it is no secret that attendance of men at church is on the decline, at least in North America. On any given Sunday, over 60% of the people in the pews are women, about 90% of males who grow up in church leave it by the time they are 19 years old, and only roughly 30% of American men attend church on a regular basis. With those numbers in mind, of course we laud attempts of the local church to reach out to men. Given that build up, you might be surprised, that I almost pulled the tiny little hairs out of my neatly shaved head as I read the recent article in USA Today by Cathy Lynn Grossman entitled, “Guys are few in the pews: churches change to attract men.” http://http//www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-07-23-males-church_N.htm
In the following paragraphs I want to critique what I read and offer an alternative.
Now, to be fair, perhaps Miss Grossman is not an "initiated evangelical" and is simply reporting what she sees in the new evangelical trend of “guy friendly” churches, and, being uninitiated, is unable to perceive the deeper philosophical moorings of these churches. So as you read this critique you might keep that thought in mind. However, what she does report leaves you shaking your head once again, saying to yourself, “stupid evangelicals!” Honestly, how many gimmicks are these people going to try before they realize that gimmicks don’t work, and in fact, that gimmicks hurt the faith and build up even more obstacles for us to beat down before we can have a decent conversation with unbelievers?
Grossman appeals to the 121 Community Church in Grapevine, Texas, as a model for this new trend of “guy church” with a hearty masculine vibe. Initially, she focuses on the décor of the church, which of course is a significant part of their strategy for reaching men according to the pastor Ross Sawyer who says, “No pastels. No flowers. No sweet music. The tone is intentionally guy church.” So naturally since guys don’t like those things the floor is concrete, the walls are hunter green, and the ceiling is made of rough timber. Surely, most men don’t like pastels, flowers, and lame music, but is the problem with reaching men merely about cosmetics? The heavy focus on the cosmetic aspect already shows how superficial the approach is going to be.
Next, we are told that the new model “guy church” has a certain ethos. David Murrow, a leading “guy church” guru, explains in the advice he gives to pastors seeking to reach men what really captivates a pagan guy: infuse adventure, challenge, boldness, competition, hands-on communication, ferocity and fun" into congregational life. If you are wondering what that looks like, well, just listen to a report from a 2002 GodMen ministry event which includes the following shockingly foolish set of events: videos of karate fights, car chases and a song with lyrics urging, "No more nice guy, timid and ashamed … Grab a sword, don't be scared — be a man, grow a pair!" (I told you that you would be shaking your head and saying “stupid evangelicals!”) So, "action packed" is the key ethos needed to reach men.
Lastly, Grossman notes that “guy church” is intentionally relational. Now, here, I believe they are getting one component right. In order to reach guys, you have to spend some time hanging out and getting to know them. But once again, as you might already be able to predict, these evangelicals mess this up to. Churches seeking men in the Sun Belt region of America are choosing to reach men through a particular kind of relational event called a “Beast Feast.” Yes, a “Beast Feast.” Apparently, men of the church invite non-Christian men they know to come eat some wild meat that they have harvested while out hunting in the woods. Stop and think about it, this could almost be a good idea if it was in some guys back yard, they threw out the title “Beast Feast,” and they mixed in some cigars and good beer. But no, its at the church banquet hall, and its named “Beast Feast,” and you can bet there are no beers and cigars. Relationships are a great way to start reaching out to men, but stupid evangelical potlucks with ridiculous names are not.
Okay, anyone can be long on criticism, but being long on solutions is better. So, what would I propose? One, strip away every stupid evangelical sounding thing from your approach. The North American species of pagan male can smell a gimmick a mile away, and a stupid evangelical gimmick from 10 miles away. So, don’t do dumb, superficial things. That is my ethos rule. Two, build relationships with men the old fashioned way: at a back yard barbeque, on a local bar stool, or at the gym. That is where you are going to find men hanging out and probably willing, over time, to let you talk to them about “big picture” ideas. Here is where I like J.I. Packer's advice when he says (I am paraphrasing here from Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God), “you have to earn the right to present Christ to men by building a relationship of trust first.” Three, when you finally get men to come to church, just do church! You know for all the hype about how they are doing “guy church” with their guy friendly décor, these churches go back to doing the same lame things that drove men away in the first place: skits, videos, music, creative worship (and oh yeah, don’t forget the guy friendly name change of Vacation Bible School to “Bible Extreme”). Basically what Grossman describes is that churches have changed the tone, repainted the walls, torn up the carpet, and rearranged the furniture, but have not touched the substance.
Here is what we need to do to reach men once they get to church: stop being lame, and just do what the Bible says when you meet for worship. Make the preached word and the administration of the sacrament central. Every week reinforce the majesty and holiness of God by reading the law and corporately confessing sin. Tell men that their relationship with Jesus is not based on “feeling good” or even “cool” at church, nor is it based on how many “guy friendly” small group meetings they go to (in fact, be sure to systematically eliminate all small groups from your church!), but rather, it is based upon worshiping once a week with the whole church and partaking of Christ and his grace in the preached word and sacrament. Tell them there are no gimmicks, no extra works to perform, no Vacation Bible School (or Bible Extreme for the ones who have unfortunately been exposed to hip "guy churches") to be guilted into teaching, no church softball teams to be a part of in order to be a good Christian. Just tell the men that Christ is their justification, and that their relationship with him is strengthened every week at 10 a.m. on Sunday when God meets with His church and gives them the grace of Christ in the word and sacrament. That’s “guy church” that will make a difference, and the good news is, it wont just make a difference for guys, it will make a difference for everyone who comes and is a part of it.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Housework and Sex: Gettin' You Some More or Role Reversal?
I know most of you guys think that you would do anything to get more sex. If you think about it every 8-10 seconds, then it stands to reason that you probably are not opposed to doing just about anything (lawfully of course) that it takes to get more of it. I wonder if there aren’t some prices that are too high to pay though. As I was reading this article on sex and housework, I began to think that just might be the case. As I walk you through this I want you to be the judge.
In her article entitled, Housework and sex: What's the connection?, Maureen Salamon records these words from a working mom:
Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand that working mothers have a lot of pressures on them between work, mothering, driving the little tikes to their t-ball games, and finding a moment to squeeze in some personal time. Of course, given that, I believe any reasonable husband is going to figure out how to lighten the load for his wife out of love and gratitude. But, I cant help but sense there is something more here in this article when this working mom says she wouldn’t find it “very attractive” if her husband wasn’t doing some of the housework. Is this sound practical advice, or is this a ruse? Well, as you read the rest of the article, it doesn’t take long to find the real agenda: husbands doing more house work is not about getting more sex, its about giving women a sense of control over the man. In other words, it is about role reversal.
There are all kinds of anecdotes I could bring in from this story to prove my point, such as men being guilted into doing 7 hours of housework a week more than their 1976 counterparts, the fact that all but 1 of the “marriage experts” quoted in the story are women, and the fact that the mere presence of a “man” in the house creates 7 extra hours of work in the house called “emotional labor” consisting in, “tasks like writing holiday cards, scheduling doctor appointments and planning family gatherings” which usually falls to the woman. That last example is a real kicker for me; how can the mere presence of a man create 7 extra hours of work such as writing out holiday cards and setting doctor appointments? Are we supposed to believe that holiday cards would not have been sent out if men weren’t in the home? Or, would there be no doctor appointments to schedule if a man wasn’t hanging around the house and sawing his fingers off while cutting down an old tree in the back yard? This is ridiculous, and if that kind of work takes you 7 hours a week, you have got to be totally inefficient.
Anyway, the real clincher for me, that this story is not actually an article for men informing them how to get more sex from their wife by pulling out a bottle of windex and a squeegy and wiping the windows clean, is the story about Jennifer Armiger. Sister Jennifer is 33 years old and a full time Ph.D student who is disgruntled with her husband. Why is Jen so upset with her husband you ask? Is he out “trolling for chicks” while she is holding down 2 jobs and trying to get a degree? Is it because he is a deadbeat and wont work? Is he abusive and addicted to drugs, alcohol, or porn, you ask? The answer to those questions is no, no, and no. Our friend Jennifer is upset because she wants to work out with her husband but cant because he is working 15 hour days running a trucking company so she can stay at home with their 4 year old son and finish off her degree (oh yeah, and cook the lazy slob of a husband a meal for dinner and then clean up afterwords). By the way, she is also mad because he “walks right past a sink full of dishes.” To show her disgust with this kind of chauvanistic behavior, she switched to paper plates (that will show the ingrate!). Jennifer thinks this arrangement they have (him working like a dog to provide for his wife and family while she goes to school and takes care of their child) is sexist, and she would like it all to change. What she wants instead, is a more “egalitarian relationship” when she finishes her degree and gets a job teaching.
Have you heard enough yet? This article is not about helping you “get some,” its about redefining marriage roles, either in the direction of putting the woman in charge or putting the man and wife on an egalitarian footing, and leaving you high and dry (if you know what I mean). This is about telling the man he must hand his “jewels” over to the wife and she gets to store them away in her purse and only “loan” them back when its convenient for her. Guys, go read the article for yourself and see whether I have misrepresented it. As for me, I think this kind of a marital relationship is a recipe for disaster. Go ahead and reverse roles with your wife if it suits you, but I am warning you, if you do, extra sex with your wife is not in the future, but you can look forward to more nagging and a pair of dish pan hands.
In her article entitled, Housework and sex: What's the connection?, Maureen Salamon records these words from a working mom:
"I am very turned on when he's doing housework," says the 36-year-old Camden, Delaware resident, a middle school teacher. "If there's a sink full of dirty dishes, he knows I'm going to take care of that before I want to get intimate. If he wasn't helping with the housework, I would not find that very attractive." http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/06/17/housework.relationships/
Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand that working mothers have a lot of pressures on them between work, mothering, driving the little tikes to their t-ball games, and finding a moment to squeeze in some personal time. Of course, given that, I believe any reasonable husband is going to figure out how to lighten the load for his wife out of love and gratitude. But, I cant help but sense there is something more here in this article when this working mom says she wouldn’t find it “very attractive” if her husband wasn’t doing some of the housework. Is this sound practical advice, or is this a ruse? Well, as you read the rest of the article, it doesn’t take long to find the real agenda: husbands doing more house work is not about getting more sex, its about giving women a sense of control over the man. In other words, it is about role reversal.
There are all kinds of anecdotes I could bring in from this story to prove my point, such as men being guilted into doing 7 hours of housework a week more than their 1976 counterparts, the fact that all but 1 of the “marriage experts” quoted in the story are women, and the fact that the mere presence of a “man” in the house creates 7 extra hours of work in the house called “emotional labor” consisting in, “tasks like writing holiday cards, scheduling doctor appointments and planning family gatherings” which usually falls to the woman. That last example is a real kicker for me; how can the mere presence of a man create 7 extra hours of work such as writing out holiday cards and setting doctor appointments? Are we supposed to believe that holiday cards would not have been sent out if men weren’t in the home? Or, would there be no doctor appointments to schedule if a man wasn’t hanging around the house and sawing his fingers off while cutting down an old tree in the back yard? This is ridiculous, and if that kind of work takes you 7 hours a week, you have got to be totally inefficient.
Anyway, the real clincher for me, that this story is not actually an article for men informing them how to get more sex from their wife by pulling out a bottle of windex and a squeegy and wiping the windows clean, is the story about Jennifer Armiger. Sister Jennifer is 33 years old and a full time Ph.D student who is disgruntled with her husband. Why is Jen so upset with her husband you ask? Is he out “trolling for chicks” while she is holding down 2 jobs and trying to get a degree? Is it because he is a deadbeat and wont work? Is he abusive and addicted to drugs, alcohol, or porn, you ask? The answer to those questions is no, no, and no. Our friend Jennifer is upset because she wants to work out with her husband but cant because he is working 15 hour days running a trucking company so she can stay at home with their 4 year old son and finish off her degree (oh yeah, and cook the lazy slob of a husband a meal for dinner and then clean up afterwords). By the way, she is also mad because he “walks right past a sink full of dishes.” To show her disgust with this kind of chauvanistic behavior, she switched to paper plates (that will show the ingrate!). Jennifer thinks this arrangement they have (him working like a dog to provide for his wife and family while she goes to school and takes care of their child) is sexist, and she would like it all to change. What she wants instead, is a more “egalitarian relationship” when she finishes her degree and gets a job teaching.
Have you heard enough yet? This article is not about helping you “get some,” its about redefining marriage roles, either in the direction of putting the woman in charge or putting the man and wife on an egalitarian footing, and leaving you high and dry (if you know what I mean). This is about telling the man he must hand his “jewels” over to the wife and she gets to store them away in her purse and only “loan” them back when its convenient for her. Guys, go read the article for yourself and see whether I have misrepresented it. As for me, I think this kind of a marital relationship is a recipe for disaster. Go ahead and reverse roles with your wife if it suits you, but I am warning you, if you do, extra sex with your wife is not in the future, but you can look forward to more nagging and a pair of dish pan hands.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Part Athenian, Part Visigoth
In a commencement address never delivered, Dr. Neil Postman once argued that there were two contrasting cultural paradigms, one of which inspires and produces the culture of the highest common denominator and the other of which constantly threatens to corrode our collective sensitivities and produces the culture of the lowest common denominator. http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2005/06/athenians-and-visigothsneil-postmans-graduation-speech.html The first culture is Athens, and the second is that of the Visigoths. Athens, he argues, was characterized by literacy, democracy, philosophy, art and the finest culture, while the Visigoths were characterized by brutality, simplicity, crudeness of speech and artistry, and a bent toward destruction. These two contrasting cultures not only represent opposite values and traditions, they also represent the two poles of culture either of which subsequent societies align with. Dr. Postman argues that the Athenian culture is the superior culture, indeed, even the model culture, while the Visigoth culture is the default culture which we are born to emulate and perpetuate apart from an intentional effort to pursue truth, beauty, and civility. While it is undoubtedly true that Athens represents a cultural high water mark, and possesses an enduring legacy, I cannot agree with Dr. Postman that this is the culture we ought to emulate. What I will argue for is a culture that is something in between, something that is part Athenian, part Visigoth. Let me explain.
Attempting to defend his proposition, that Athenian culture is superior and that we ought therefore to emulate it, Postman points to Athenian language and art, along with their byproducts as illustrations of cultural excellence. Clearly, if we were to make our evaluation of these two societies purely on the basis of their cultural byproducts, and then based on that evaluation establish which culture ought to be emulated, then Athens would win hands down. The Athenians left for our admiration the Parthenon, the poetry of Sappho and Pindar, the tragedies of Euriopides and Sophocles, the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle, not to mention political democracy and the Olympics, while the Visigoths left behind “no poetry, no theater, no logic, no science, no humane politics.”
However, though the Athenian accomplishments are illustrations of the enduring quality which characterized much of Athenian culture, they only capture one side of the cultural spectrum. Sure, on the one hand, there is something to be said for art that arranges a collage of images, colors, and shapes in symmetrical order and realistic proportion. But, on the other hand, there are numerous examples of non-representational art of the sort of Visigoth mold that provokes real thought and deep emotion simply because it doesn’t reproduce a depiction of reality that borders on the Rockwellesque and surreal. Instead, it highlights and accentuates the twisted and uneven grooves and texture of the world we actually live in. To say that one is “better” than the other and ought to be cherished above the other and modeled, while the other should not be, is a sort of snotty elitism, a bigotry, and amounts to a purely subjective value judgment.
To follow Postman’s argument out further, let’s think about Athenian rhetoric. Yes, the prose is polished, elegant, even stately, and the argument is often well developed. However, to insist that this is the only kind of communication that is admirable or even effective is a stretch. Think of the power and insight generated by simple non-verbal cues which speak volumes without words and sentences. Beyond the non-verbal, think of the brilliant, non-Athenian style of Hemingway who communicated with an economy of words. Or, consider, the vigorous oratory of Churchill which lacked the polish and grand style of the Golden Orators of ancient Athens. The only point I am trying to make here is that the “simple” rhetorical model of the Visigoth doesn’t always indicate lack of nuance, depth, or insight as Postman seems to suggest. The clear, simple, yet aggressive style of the Visigoth can be just as effective and meaningful as the Athenian style.
Beyond the comparison of cultural byproducts, I believe there is an important argument to be made for Visigoth culture with its commitment to the martial way. The Visigoths were warriors, horsemen, and strategists. These technical skills were part of a broader martial ethos that included the qualities of self-discipline, valor, comradery, and persistence. This kind of martial ethos is essential for a society if it is to enjoy the opportunity to engage in culture. No society will long enjoy the luxury to ponder, reflect, communicate, compose, sculpt, or paint without the presence of a warrior class and a martial spirit to protect from external marauders or to restrain the internal threats posed by the inherent darkness in citizens, which constantly threatens to erupt in chaos and plunge the polis into disorder. Peer pressure is certainly not enough to restrain such inherent corruption, neither is the power of a good example; tough-minded, exacting brute force is. A well-founded society must have an enforcer, there has to be somebody who everyone fears enough to bridle their darker instincts and who keeps opportunistic outsiders at bay out of fear of severe bodily risk or even death.
But the positive aspects of the Visigoth ethos consists in more than just providing physical security it impacts other areas of society as well, namely, economic development. In contrast to the Greeks, who were more fascinated with the contemplative, the Visigoths were pragmatic, they were about utility. Their concern was how to use knowledge and skill for gain, as Postman notes, “To a Visigoth, the quest for knowledge is useless unless it can help you to earn money or to gain power over other people.” In other words, the Visigoth contribution to society is the development of a mindset that seeks to turn ideas into applications that have a useful purpose and economic benefit. That stands in contrast to the Athenians who seemed to think of themselves as above that; after all, they had slaves do their work anyway, so they didn’t really seem to care as much about efficiency of production or utility. The only reason why I can see that someone would count that as a negative, is because they are so culturally idealistic and Utopian that they are social egalitarians and don’t want a society where there are class differences based upon skill and individual genius. But, if you have a free market society, ingenuity is the genius that paves the pathway out of poverty into the track of upward social and economic mobility. The Visigoth ethos contributes toward a society of economic prosperity precisely because it cultivates an attitude which is both pragmatic and opportunistic, contemplative and utilitarian.
So, I argue, the best culture is a combination of cultures, one which is part Athenian and part Visigoth, a culture which balances the pursuit of the aesthetics of the Athenians with the cultivation of the martial ethos of the Visigoths. This culture is embodied first of all at the individual level, and then valued and developed at the community level. An individual who lacks martial discipline will either not enjoy the requisite personal qualities to develop their latent mental and aesthetic abilities to their fullest potential or will experience the frustration of having their self-expression being constantly interrupted or worse yet destroyed by thugs and savages. On the other hand the individual who lacks mental and aesthetic abilities yet cultivates martial skill in unequal proportion, will either become so one dimensional that they will become grotesque and eventually self-loathing, or will plunge the culture around them into a state of chaos and darkness in a quest for illegitimate domination. By striking a balance between these contrasting personal qualities the individual will be given the freedom to think and engage in articulate self-expression. When a culture consists of individuals with the proportional balance of Athenian and Visigoth it will possess both mental and aesthetic discipline as well as physical security and internal order. In other words it will be both smart and tough, powerful and articulate, ordered and imaginative. That is what I mean by part Athenian, part Visigoth, and I believe that is the kind of culture that we ought to attempt to emulate.
Attempting to defend his proposition, that Athenian culture is superior and that we ought therefore to emulate it, Postman points to Athenian language and art, along with their byproducts as illustrations of cultural excellence. Clearly, if we were to make our evaluation of these two societies purely on the basis of their cultural byproducts, and then based on that evaluation establish which culture ought to be emulated, then Athens would win hands down. The Athenians left for our admiration the Parthenon, the poetry of Sappho and Pindar, the tragedies of Euriopides and Sophocles, the philosophical writings of Plato and Aristotle, not to mention political democracy and the Olympics, while the Visigoths left behind “no poetry, no theater, no logic, no science, no humane politics.”
However, though the Athenian accomplishments are illustrations of the enduring quality which characterized much of Athenian culture, they only capture one side of the cultural spectrum. Sure, on the one hand, there is something to be said for art that arranges a collage of images, colors, and shapes in symmetrical order and realistic proportion. But, on the other hand, there are numerous examples of non-representational art of the sort of Visigoth mold that provokes real thought and deep emotion simply because it doesn’t reproduce a depiction of reality that borders on the Rockwellesque and surreal. Instead, it highlights and accentuates the twisted and uneven grooves and texture of the world we actually live in. To say that one is “better” than the other and ought to be cherished above the other and modeled, while the other should not be, is a sort of snotty elitism, a bigotry, and amounts to a purely subjective value judgment.
To follow Postman’s argument out further, let’s think about Athenian rhetoric. Yes, the prose is polished, elegant, even stately, and the argument is often well developed. However, to insist that this is the only kind of communication that is admirable or even effective is a stretch. Think of the power and insight generated by simple non-verbal cues which speak volumes without words and sentences. Beyond the non-verbal, think of the brilliant, non-Athenian style of Hemingway who communicated with an economy of words. Or, consider, the vigorous oratory of Churchill which lacked the polish and grand style of the Golden Orators of ancient Athens. The only point I am trying to make here is that the “simple” rhetorical model of the Visigoth doesn’t always indicate lack of nuance, depth, or insight as Postman seems to suggest. The clear, simple, yet aggressive style of the Visigoth can be just as effective and meaningful as the Athenian style.
Beyond the comparison of cultural byproducts, I believe there is an important argument to be made for Visigoth culture with its commitment to the martial way. The Visigoths were warriors, horsemen, and strategists. These technical skills were part of a broader martial ethos that included the qualities of self-discipline, valor, comradery, and persistence. This kind of martial ethos is essential for a society if it is to enjoy the opportunity to engage in culture. No society will long enjoy the luxury to ponder, reflect, communicate, compose, sculpt, or paint without the presence of a warrior class and a martial spirit to protect from external marauders or to restrain the internal threats posed by the inherent darkness in citizens, which constantly threatens to erupt in chaos and plunge the polis into disorder. Peer pressure is certainly not enough to restrain such inherent corruption, neither is the power of a good example; tough-minded, exacting brute force is. A well-founded society must have an enforcer, there has to be somebody who everyone fears enough to bridle their darker instincts and who keeps opportunistic outsiders at bay out of fear of severe bodily risk or even death.
But the positive aspects of the Visigoth ethos consists in more than just providing physical security it impacts other areas of society as well, namely, economic development. In contrast to the Greeks, who were more fascinated with the contemplative, the Visigoths were pragmatic, they were about utility. Their concern was how to use knowledge and skill for gain, as Postman notes, “To a Visigoth, the quest for knowledge is useless unless it can help you to earn money or to gain power over other people.” In other words, the Visigoth contribution to society is the development of a mindset that seeks to turn ideas into applications that have a useful purpose and economic benefit. That stands in contrast to the Athenians who seemed to think of themselves as above that; after all, they had slaves do their work anyway, so they didn’t really seem to care as much about efficiency of production or utility. The only reason why I can see that someone would count that as a negative, is because they are so culturally idealistic and Utopian that they are social egalitarians and don’t want a society where there are class differences based upon skill and individual genius. But, if you have a free market society, ingenuity is the genius that paves the pathway out of poverty into the track of upward social and economic mobility. The Visigoth ethos contributes toward a society of economic prosperity precisely because it cultivates an attitude which is both pragmatic and opportunistic, contemplative and utilitarian.
So, I argue, the best culture is a combination of cultures, one which is part Athenian and part Visigoth, a culture which balances the pursuit of the aesthetics of the Athenians with the cultivation of the martial ethos of the Visigoths. This culture is embodied first of all at the individual level, and then valued and developed at the community level. An individual who lacks martial discipline will either not enjoy the requisite personal qualities to develop their latent mental and aesthetic abilities to their fullest potential or will experience the frustration of having their self-expression being constantly interrupted or worse yet destroyed by thugs and savages. On the other hand the individual who lacks mental and aesthetic abilities yet cultivates martial skill in unequal proportion, will either become so one dimensional that they will become grotesque and eventually self-loathing, or will plunge the culture around them into a state of chaos and darkness in a quest for illegitimate domination. By striking a balance between these contrasting personal qualities the individual will be given the freedom to think and engage in articulate self-expression. When a culture consists of individuals with the proportional balance of Athenian and Visigoth it will possess both mental and aesthetic discipline as well as physical security and internal order. In other words it will be both smart and tough, powerful and articulate, ordered and imaginative. That is what I mean by part Athenian, part Visigoth, and I believe that is the kind of culture that we ought to attempt to emulate.
Friday, July 11, 2008
We are all just addicts waiting to happen
It seems like anywhere you turn today, you can find a scientific explanation for almost any behavior, deviant or "normal." If you drink too much you are an alcoholic, if you smoke too much you are a nicotine addict, if you are overly sexually active, you are a sex-aholic. The best thing about all these labels is that they come with scientific (genetic) explanations. Whatever your addiction, clearly, it cant be a lack of self-control it can only be that you are genetically predisposed to that particular addictive pattern of behavior. Your behavior has everything to do with the cards you were dealt. You got a bad hand and now you will just have to live with it. Maybe a little therapy and some medication can help minimize its effects, but at the end of the day, your "addiction" will always be there lurking in the shadows to overtake you. You will never beat it, rather, you are always going to be a helpless victim of your genes, and the best you can ever say is that you are "recovering."
Well, now add one more group of helpless victims to the long list of addicts. In a recent article posted in the Telegraph, scientists report that they have found a new clinical disorder called "gadget addiction." This terrible addiction is explained as follows:
They suffer four symptoms: They forget to eat and sleep; they need more advanced technology or more hours online as they develop 'resistance' to the pleasure given by their current system; if they are deprived of their computer, they experience genuine withdrawal symptoms; And in common with other addictions, the victims also begin to have more arguments, to suffer fatigue, to get lower marks in tests and to feel isolated from society. http://Internet addiction is a 'clinical disorder'
Now before you start snickering too loudly at the “gadget addicts” take a moment to consider the debilitating nature of this problem. Dr. Jerald Block explains that some sufferers “were so addicted to the internet that they required medication or even hospital treatment to curb the time they spent on the web.”
He goes on to say that: "The relationship is with the computer. It becomes a significant other to them. They exhaust emotions that they could experience in the real world on the computer through any number of mechanisms: emailing, gaming, porn." Wow, sounds incredibly awful.
Perhaps you recognize yourself somewhere in those four symptoms, and are concerned that you too may be a “gadget addict.” Just wait though, because you may not need to rush out for 12 steps and meds just yet. Research suggests the true “gadget addict” is the species of highly educated, socially awkward men, oh yeah, and also middle aged housewives. If you don’t fit either of those categories, I am sorry to report to you that there is no known explanation for your obsessive internet addiction. But, on the other hand, don’t worry long over this because, after all, if the scientists keep fishing around in the gene pool they are likely to find just the disorder that ails you. In the mean time, just keep on with what you are doing, after all, you are simply doing what you are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)