I've been thinking lately about love and relationships. I have some dear friends who have dedicated themselves passionately to picking up women. They read the books, watch the shows and tutorials, and practice constantly and are becoming very good at picking up women and taking advantage of social situations.
Last semester, I started down that same path; a path my friends and I had mastered in high school and I had been relatively out of touch with during my college experience. However, based on things I learned last semester and different experiences I had, I was hesitant to continue with the literature and practice this semester. It would seem that, down that path, there is a definite fork in the road and I would like to think that I, I took the road less travelled by. But I'm not entirely sure what my base motivations are, hence my ponderings...
To be honest, the art of picking up women is basically a game of control. It is rejecting the "nice guy" attitude which is associated with guys who are too nice and get walked on by women in all their relationships. Guys that often lack confidence and the ability to generate mutual respect; in their lives, it is often a queen-servant relationship. I agree with some aspects of this, but not necessarily in the same way. You see, the literature goes beyond to point of mutual respect and puts the man on the pedestal. It preaches that men should be the dominant actors in interactions and relationships and that it should be more of an alpha male-submissive female relationship. In essence, it puts control into the hands and whims of the man.
As a man, elements of control are very attractive. And I don't think that all aspects of control necessarily come from bad intentions, but I am learning that control is usually the offspring of fear and that, even if masked as a good intention, the drive to control situations, relationships, and opportunities is a very dangerous associate. This is the "fork" that I perceive between myself and my dear friends: I agree with the ideas of confidence, low-pressure interactions, and the development of personal potential, but I disagree with the ideas of control, dominance, and inequality. To me, a relationship should be an institution of equality. Not equality is the sense that the man and woman share everything exactly half-and-half, but equality in the sense that both people are equally empowered to contribute and develop their unique attributes, talents, and perspectives and are both equally flexible and adaptable to problem solving, planning, communication, and understanding. In other words, both parties are equally able and empowered to be their best selves, to continue in the development of their own selves, and to emulate and acquire the desirable attributes of their partner. In this way, the couple works as a single institution which goes beyond the abilities and potential of the two separate individuals.
But that is one man's dream. I don't even really know for myself if such an institution is really possible and this leads to another branch of my ponderings. What part of my personality is it that longs for such a relationship? Because, if it is the part of me that fears the future and fears uncertainly and difficulty in a relationship, than my dream is no better than the literature about picking up women and seeking to dominate the relationship: in this case my dream would only be another complex attempt at securing control. It might also be a dream based on my own personal fears of my own shortcomings and lack of confidence: perhaps I seek an "equal" relationship as a mask for a deeper desire to hide my insecurities in the desire for the responsibilities of another.
Time will tell, that is both the beauty and terror of relationships: they must be experienced. And I think this is my deepest motivation for leaving the high school tactics and pick-up-artist literature behind: I am trying to realize through my convictions and actions that opportunities and experiences will come in their due time. I cannot anticipate or expect them, that would only fuel my desires for control. Instead I can prepare by developing myself and by fostering edifying friendships and social interactions when opportunities present themselves. I can let go of my own social desires and take on a positive attitude as a leader, as an example, and as a friend. And, most of all, I can trust; I can trust that opportunities and experiences will be granted in their due time; I can trust that these experiences are meant to be learnt from and not to be given control of; and I can trust that there are divine interests in my social interactions that will lead to futures far beyond my own dreams. I have felt great love and friendship this semester as I have tried to take that different path and I have felt more edified, more empowered to use my unique talents and attributes, and more able to develop those attributes and become a better person.
The part of me that wants control and feels like "being a man" somehow has to involve dominance and control is still jealous sometimes of my dear friends. That part of me admires how they can bend situations to their advantage and quickly get what they want without losing face. I think there is a part of all of us that craves that kind of control; that wants immediate satisfaction and idolizes those who can get it. But I do not think there is a true sense of satisfaction and happiness down that path, as fun as it may be. I believe I am beginning to embrace deeper motivations and this has led to a social life not dominated, at least in theory, by expectations, pressures, or control. However, I have only found satisfaction down this path insomuch as those deeper motivations have been guided by divine feelings and promptings: as soon as they become tools to stay my fear of the unknown, I believe they have lost their empowerment and fall back onto the path that seeks control. A delicate balance to sure, but neither impossible nor unforgiving: it is the hint of something more than temporary.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
3.17.09
I once knew a man
whose fear would stand as though his friend
laughing with much merriment
when skies were fine and blue
when words that split his life in two
were masked with nothing new
it was in the warm embraces
of a life that seemed so harmless
that his fear was best enshrouded
that his warmth was not so crowded
by the wants he swore he scarcely knew
his fear caressed as though his lover
whispering so safe and sure
of a future he could feel and see
a future with his bended knee:
on which and to which he was to flee
his fear would speak as though his brother
giving from so far away
words that hinted, sparked, and faded
words that, so much like his life,
were appreciated
only when anticipated
whose fear would stand as though his friend
laughing with much merriment
when skies were fine and blue
when words that split his life in two
were masked with nothing new
it was in the warm embraces
of a life that seemed so harmless
that his fear was best enshrouded
that his warmth was not so crowded
by the wants he swore he scarcely knew
his fear caressed as though his lover
whispering so safe and sure
of a future he could feel and see
a future with his bended knee:
on which and to which he was to flee
his fear would speak as though his brother
giving from so far away
words that hinted, sparked, and faded
words that, so much like his life,
were appreciated
only when anticipated
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
3.10.09
I continue thinking about culture, language, and education. We had a debate yesterday in my comparative education class about language of instruction policies. We talked about both the US and Africa and what multilingual policies would help to encourage development. As in the discussion, I will focus my remarks here on the primary level of instruction as secondary and tertiary have their own (though interconnected) challenges.
In my eyes, every child has a human right to be educated in his or her own culture and language so as to develop essential analytical and social skills. Multilingual primary school instruction policies hit closest to the mark on protecting that human right and empowering each child to be economically and culturally functional. In this respect, these policies are the most effective bridge between economic and cultural gaps in all societies. Given, the US and African countries are on different continents, have different histories, and demand separate analyses. However, these separate challenges and analyses should not be focused on whether or not multilingual policies should be implemented, but how they are to be implemented. As I have mentioned before, capitalist forces may have embarked on the road to globalization without realizing some of the social and cultural consequences. These consequences are not inherently bad, but have not been properly acknowledged to date. These roadblocks are largely the reason for the gigantic economic and social gaps that exist today in both developed and developing states. It is essential that these gaps be bridged if economic and human development is to proceed: a globalized world cannot afford the same magnitude of weights to its progress and citizens cannot afford insensitive policies that expect human rights, but do not facilitate empowerment.
So, the million-dollar question is: how do we do that? And my answer is: strong state and local leadership which ensure equal access to quality social services. And, in the context of this discussion, my answer is: we must start with education.
How can we do this in the US? I think we must ensure that immigrants receive classroom instruction in their own language for at least the first three years. Years four, five, and six should be transition years in which students transition from their native language to the administrative language of the state (in this case, English). Curriculum should also be extremely sensitive in terms of equality: cultural values (not traditions) should be taught and encouraged. Native English-speakers should receive similar cultural education: edifying, equal values to lower cultural boundaries. Ideally, English-speakers would also transition into a foreign language of choice during grades four, five, and six (such as do many Western European and Scandinavian states) to facilitate cultural equality and respect and do increase the quality of primary education in general. These programs would translate into extensive, more economically sensitive secondary programs, but that discussion is for another day.
This program would help children of all cultures and languages to be socially functional in their family and community and also economically functional in the national market through proficiency in the administrative language. Initially, I would expect a large influx of immigrants with desires to benefit from this type of program. However, whereas this influx could be too immense of a burden if the rising generation of those immigrating were almost forced to perpetuate the limited functionality of their culture and language, if that rising generation were empowered to contribute, what innovation and prosperity might be the result? But this is why I also advocate changes to the English-speaking curriculum: the empowerment of immigrants has the dreadful potential to exacerbate cultural differences. Cultural respect must be ensured through cultural-exchanging curriculum.
It may still appear to be culturally segregating from the outside, but I argue the opposite: a program along these lines stabs the fear and practice of cultural imposition and domination square in the heart. It helps to put cultures and languages on the same social level and in the same economic market. It begins to encourage them to work together and develop mutual respect. And, whereas that has been an ideal but not a necessity to human development in past years, in a global world we cannot afford current cultural boundaries. We cannot afford the conflicts and underdevelopments that are results of cultural imposition. We cannot afford the dead-weights and impossible responsibilities that are results of cultural domination. Culture, as is referenced to by Huntington, has the terrible possibility to be the battlefield of the future. It is my wish and deepest desire that it not be a battlefield, but a community. However, if we do not start to make the necessary steps now, I fear that current momentums, policies, and practices will pull culture to fulfill its most terrible potential.
In my eyes, every child has a human right to be educated in his or her own culture and language so as to develop essential analytical and social skills. Multilingual primary school instruction policies hit closest to the mark on protecting that human right and empowering each child to be economically and culturally functional. In this respect, these policies are the most effective bridge between economic and cultural gaps in all societies. Given, the US and African countries are on different continents, have different histories, and demand separate analyses. However, these separate challenges and analyses should not be focused on whether or not multilingual policies should be implemented, but how they are to be implemented. As I have mentioned before, capitalist forces may have embarked on the road to globalization without realizing some of the social and cultural consequences. These consequences are not inherently bad, but have not been properly acknowledged to date. These roadblocks are largely the reason for the gigantic economic and social gaps that exist today in both developed and developing states. It is essential that these gaps be bridged if economic and human development is to proceed: a globalized world cannot afford the same magnitude of weights to its progress and citizens cannot afford insensitive policies that expect human rights, but do not facilitate empowerment.
So, the million-dollar question is: how do we do that? And my answer is: strong state and local leadership which ensure equal access to quality social services. And, in the context of this discussion, my answer is: we must start with education.
How can we do this in the US? I think we must ensure that immigrants receive classroom instruction in their own language for at least the first three years. Years four, five, and six should be transition years in which students transition from their native language to the administrative language of the state (in this case, English). Curriculum should also be extremely sensitive in terms of equality: cultural values (not traditions) should be taught and encouraged. Native English-speakers should receive similar cultural education: edifying, equal values to lower cultural boundaries. Ideally, English-speakers would also transition into a foreign language of choice during grades four, five, and six (such as do many Western European and Scandinavian states) to facilitate cultural equality and respect and do increase the quality of primary education in general. These programs would translate into extensive, more economically sensitive secondary programs, but that discussion is for another day.
This program would help children of all cultures and languages to be socially functional in their family and community and also economically functional in the national market through proficiency in the administrative language. Initially, I would expect a large influx of immigrants with desires to benefit from this type of program. However, whereas this influx could be too immense of a burden if the rising generation of those immigrating were almost forced to perpetuate the limited functionality of their culture and language, if that rising generation were empowered to contribute, what innovation and prosperity might be the result? But this is why I also advocate changes to the English-speaking curriculum: the empowerment of immigrants has the dreadful potential to exacerbate cultural differences. Cultural respect must be ensured through cultural-exchanging curriculum.
It may still appear to be culturally segregating from the outside, but I argue the opposite: a program along these lines stabs the fear and practice of cultural imposition and domination square in the heart. It helps to put cultures and languages on the same social level and in the same economic market. It begins to encourage them to work together and develop mutual respect. And, whereas that has been an ideal but not a necessity to human development in past years, in a global world we cannot afford current cultural boundaries. We cannot afford the conflicts and underdevelopments that are results of cultural imposition. We cannot afford the dead-weights and impossible responsibilities that are results of cultural domination. Culture, as is referenced to by Huntington, has the terrible possibility to be the battlefield of the future. It is my wish and deepest desire that it not be a battlefield, but a community. However, if we do not start to make the necessary steps now, I fear that current momentums, policies, and practices will pull culture to fulfill its most terrible potential.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
3.5.09
I learned something very important today about complaining. Sometimes complaining seems that it cannot be avoided; stress and tension cause the mind to want to vent in some way. However, after venting today, I did feel somewhat more relaxed, but not justified.
Complaining, I think, only helps us to forget that it is the Lord who will see us through our trials, challenges, and temptations. He knows us perfectly: our talents, capabilities, situations, and doubts. I do not believe that we are given opportunities in order to fail. Even if those opportunities do not turn out the way we had anticipated, personal progression is not dependent on our own expectations when it comes to opportunities. Personal progression comes in faith and faith comes in knowing and believing that the Lord can and will make us equal to the task and then acting in accordance to that knowledge and belief. When I complained today, my belief that the Lord could make me equal to the task was not affected. However, by complaining I was doubting whether He actually had or would. I was trying to justify the hardship of my own attempts to control my situation, forgetting that it is my Lord who controls the situation and that He will see me through whatever task, be it seemingly easy or impossible.
As I look back at what I was complaining about, I realize that the Lord actually did make me able; He helped me every step of the way and made me equal to the task. And not only did He help me get things done, He gave me excellent, edifying educational experiences in the process. My mind should not be lingering on complaints; I should look back with extreme gratitude and amazement. I should look back and be able to strengthen my faith because of what the Lord helped me to accomplish. My trust in Him should now grow because of the fresh example that with His divine help, I can accomplish whatever should be His will. Complaining, I think, has the opposite effect: it has caused me to doubt my abilities and talents, to call them my own, and to fear future challenges. I would not have this be my mindset; it has only the power to cause doubt and fear.
In the future I will try to remember this better. I will remember that complaining does not edify, but its cursing is twofold: not recognizing the Lord's hand and not believing in His promises. I will remember that faith is not just believing that the Lord can, but that He will make me equal to the task. Beautiful and mysterious are His ways and who am I to question even the most difficult of challenges? In the future, I will try to remember not to complain and to think of faith instead of conceding even to the temptation and thought of complaining. Glory be to our Lord and the path He has chosen for me; I know He will see me through. May He keep us in our efforts to remember; may He keep us in our efforts to see His wisdom in all things and not forget ourselves unto temptations.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
3.3.09
Culture and language have been on my mind lately: I am in a comparative education and poverty reduction class and the issue of culturally sensitive policies comes up frequently. However, even though I see the logic and importance of culturally sensitive programs and initiatives, I have a tendency to exclude myself. There is a fear there, deep under the skin, of cultural division. And so, I understand culturally empowering motives, but there is a part of me that fears them; a part of me that I hope will continue to recede in coming years.
To illustrate: yesterday we discussed language of instruction issues which is one of my education policy passions. Basically, the argument is this: children should be instructed, at least for their first few schooling years, in their native language in order to ease understanding and preserve cultural roots. The effects of these initiatives are both economic and social and, I believe, are among the most effective in ensuring income and cultural equality. But what of the US? Yesterday, as we were discussing, our own education policies came into question. I was asked: are you saying that the US should adopt multilingual language of instruction policies? A few months ago, my answer would undoubtedly have been no. But not yesterday. Yesterday, and today, my answer was and is: absolutely.
I would not have intended to say no out of a conscious intolerance for other cultures, but most likely out of a certain brand of patriotism that lingers with the scent of Cold War suspicions. However, I believe my yes answer is truly patriotic in other ways; transformative ways; progressive ways. Imagine with me: all cultures within the US receiving equal opportunities and rights to education in their own languages. Does it stir you? It most certainly has me.
English is obviously the administrative language of the states that I do not believe this should change. But what is the US? Did we think that, in our dive into globalization, we could still preserve the same types of borders? Maybe we so thought, but the consequences are clear: today's world is increasingly a world of cultures and not of geographical boundaries. And, like the boundaries with which we are so familiar, this new development has been and will continue to be both beautiful and terrible as the years progress.
But we are so afraid, at least I was, to start to let go of those boundaries. Wouldn't I be doing a disservice to those who gave their lives for our independence? Isn't the US ours; haven't we defended it; haven't we nourished it; haven't we helped it grow? Fascinating questions; so incredibly fascinating!
I'll tell you what I believe: I think we would do more of a disservice to our predecessors by forgetting the edifying values of our culture in an attempt to secure a piece of land. In the slow, unstoppable progression of time, all will change anyway. Everything except the edifying truth of values. I believe that cultures are a way to preserve those values across time; from generation to generation.
That is why, to me, language is one of the greatest empowerment tools. That is why, to me, one of the greatest things we can do to be leaders is ensure the preservation and perpetuation of the edifying values of each culture in whatsoever place they reside; be it post-colonial Africa or the US.
To illustrate: yesterday we discussed language of instruction issues which is one of my education policy passions. Basically, the argument is this: children should be instructed, at least for their first few schooling years, in their native language in order to ease understanding and preserve cultural roots. The effects of these initiatives are both economic and social and, I believe, are among the most effective in ensuring income and cultural equality. But what of the US? Yesterday, as we were discussing, our own education policies came into question. I was asked: are you saying that the US should adopt multilingual language of instruction policies? A few months ago, my answer would undoubtedly have been no. But not yesterday. Yesterday, and today, my answer was and is: absolutely.
I would not have intended to say no out of a conscious intolerance for other cultures, but most likely out of a certain brand of patriotism that lingers with the scent of Cold War suspicions. However, I believe my yes answer is truly patriotic in other ways; transformative ways; progressive ways. Imagine with me: all cultures within the US receiving equal opportunities and rights to education in their own languages. Does it stir you? It most certainly has me.
English is obviously the administrative language of the states that I do not believe this should change. But what is the US? Did we think that, in our dive into globalization, we could still preserve the same types of borders? Maybe we so thought, but the consequences are clear: today's world is increasingly a world of cultures and not of geographical boundaries. And, like the boundaries with which we are so familiar, this new development has been and will continue to be both beautiful and terrible as the years progress.
But we are so afraid, at least I was, to start to let go of those boundaries. Wouldn't I be doing a disservice to those who gave their lives for our independence? Isn't the US ours; haven't we defended it; haven't we nourished it; haven't we helped it grow? Fascinating questions; so incredibly fascinating!
I'll tell you what I believe: I think we would do more of a disservice to our predecessors by forgetting the edifying values of our culture in an attempt to secure a piece of land. In the slow, unstoppable progression of time, all will change anyway. Everything except the edifying truth of values. I believe that cultures are a way to preserve those values across time; from generation to generation.
That is why, to me, language is one of the greatest empowerment tools. That is why, to me, one of the greatest things we can do to be leaders is ensure the preservation and perpetuation of the edifying values of each culture in whatsoever place they reside; be it post-colonial Africa or the US.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)