I am following Professor Hale's advice...

...and doing a short post.


Do you ever see bumper stickers or emblems on cars that drive you crazy? I do.

This one for example:

Apparently women need to "misbehave" to make a difference. I guess that goes with the "bitches get things done" attitude.



Or this one:

I dislike this one because it kind of smacks of the "I'm in the club and you're not" mentality.

I don't like this one either:

I have God along for the ride to help me out!

Or this one:

As though evolution was a theory that could be tested through experiments like gravity.

On the subject of evolution, here is the latest installment in the "Christian fish" vs "Darwin fish"
emblem battle:

I guess I just don't like things based on mockery. I've never seen the symbol of another religion such as Judaism or Islam treated in this manner.

Why my blog is pathetic

Dear blog readers,

Hello, it's me, Learner. I know I have not been around here much here lately. Life has become rather busy since the semester started and I have not had much extra free time to write here. I have been rather occupied with some increased teaching responsibilities (14 graduate credits, yikes!), professional writing projects, dissertating (yes, it is a verb, as in to work on a dissertation), going to help my dad care for my mom who is home after spending 3 months in a nursing home and daydreaming about a certain wonderful gentleman.

I have had ideas for posts such as:

• a rant about going through the review and publication process for a journal article (which I am sure most of y'all would find mind numbingly boring)
• a discussion of a recent conversation I had with co-workers where a family court judge was described as "biased toward fathers" because they tended toward 50/50 custody arrangements more often (er....isn't 50/50 kinda unbiased?)
• recounting a conversation between several of my female students about why a male neighbor of one of them was a "loser" (made no sense to me)
• describing a conversation from my single women's Bible study where a sermon one of the women heard was shared which the pastor specifically said was for "single men" though everyone was invited to "listen in". The subject of the sermon? Sexual purity. Yeah, no one but single men need to learn about sexual purity.
• a list of verses from the Bible about how God wants us to live as men and women outside of marriage, children, and sexuality for Catwoman since she doesn't seem to know where any of them are.
• a post about why some women don't seem to able to be happy for you when you meet a great guy (to quote one of my friend's after I said I had a wonderful time with the previously mentioned gentleman, "Gag")

Yet, none of these posts has come to fruition. At the moment I don't think any of them will. I also have a few more C.S. Lewis quotes I'd like to share, but that doesn't seem to be happening either.

So, if you'd like to read an interesting post, may I recommend this one over at Imonk about how to talk to Christians of other faith traditions or this one from Terry at Breathing Grace about the difference between falling in love and living in love, because you likely won't find one here! :)

Love,
Learner

Love, marriage and politically correct research

More on love and marriage from C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis has interesting things to say on love and marriage in the The Screwtape Letters. Senior demon Screwtape writes letters to his junior demon nephew Wormwood on how to take humans from "the Enemy" being God, toward "Our Father" being Satan:

Now comes the joke. The Enemy described a married couple as 'one flesh'. He did not say a 'happily married couple' or 'a couple who married because they were in love', but you can make the humans ignore that. You can also make them forget that the man they call Paul did not confine it to married couples. Mere copulation, for him, makes 'one flesh'. You can thus get the humans to accept as rhetorical eulogies of 'being in love' what were in fact plain descriptions of the real significance of sexual intercourse. The truth is that whenever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured. From the true statement that this transcendental relation was intended to produce, and, if obediently entered into, too often will produce, affection and the family, humans can be made to infer the false belief that the blend of affection, fear and desire which they call 'being in love' is the only thing that makes marriage either happy or holy. The error is easy to produce because 'being in love' does very often, in Western Europe, precede marriages which are made in obedience to the Enemies designs, that is, with the intention of fidelity, fertility and good will; just as religious emotion very often, but not always, attends conversion. (emphasis mine)

When we come from the place that elevates "being in love", a temporary feeling which should not be confused with love, to the pinnacle of human experience, we create an environment where the loss of the feeling of "being in love" can be used as an excuse for all sorts of behaviors destructive to marriage, including infidelity. After all, God wants us to be "happy", right? Right?

************************************************************

Politically correct research

You never know when you are going to run into examples of political correctness when it comes to the differences between the genders. I attended a dissertation defense on Friday in preparation for my own defense one of these days. The study being defended examined a certain type of knee injury in sports that is more commonly experienced by women than by men, the anterior cruciate ligament, or ACL tear. The researcher outlined the anatomic and kinematic differences between men and women related to this injury. Basically, men tend to land from a jump in more knee flexion than women due to different factors, not the least of which is better balance between the quadriceps and hamstring muscles (ie; women tend to overly rely on their quads resulting in greater knee extension upon landing). And, the ACL is more at risk for injury in extension.

The researcher then went on to describe the study she carried out which involved a way to change landing kinematics such that the women in the study had more knee flexion when landing. After her presentation the audience had the opportunity to as her questions and one of the female anatomy profs asked the following question; "In essence aren't you trying to masculinize these women's movement patterns?" I thought to myself that was true, and that it would make sense to do so to a certain degree if the goal is to prevent ACL injuries among female athletes. But, the researcher answered, "Well, I suppose you could look at it that way, but I prefer not to. It is, in a sense, true, but it isn't appropriate to consider the findings in that manner". The prof who asked the question nodded her approval and from the back of the room I could observe several other profs shaking their heads a bit. Brilliant! Never mind the truth if it makes you uncomfortable to think of it in that way or you find it "inappropriate". We can't imply that men in any way have any inherent superiority to women, now can we?

A milestone

10,000 Visits here at Learning to Balance. Who'da thunk it?

Love and competition

In 1942 Christian writer C.S. Lewis published The Screwtape Letters. The book is a series of “letters” between Screwtape, a senior demon and his nephew Wormwood, a junior demon about how to ensure the damnation of people. Lewis makes some chilling observations in the book about many subjects including love and marriage. In this passage “the Enemy” is God and “our Father” is the devil.

The Enemy’s demand on humans takes the form of a dilemma; either complete abstinence or unmitigated monogamy. Ever since our Father’s first great victory, we have rendered the former very difficult to them. The latter, for the last few centuries, we have been closing up as a way of escape. We have done this through the poets and the novelists by persuading the humans that a curious, and usually short lived experience which they call ‘being in love’ is the only respectable ground for marriage; that marriage can, and ought to, render this excitement permanent, and that a marriage which does not do so is no longer binding. This is our parody of an idea that came from the Enemy.

The whole philosophy of Hell rests on recognition of the axiom that one thing is not another thing, and, specially, that one self is not another self. My good is my good and your good is yours. What one gains another loses….’To be’ means to ‘be in competition’.

Lewis seems to have nailed the basis of the struggle in the current culture with marriage 67 years ago.

"Game", Marriage and Football

"Game"

It seems that "game" is a hot topic in many of the blogs I read lately. Anakin, Novaseeker, and Amir and others have written posts about "game" and PUAs (pick up artists) recently. This is not a subject that I know much about but I have recently done a little reading on the subject to try and understand it a bit more. It sounds to me like "game" is like many philosophies (does it qualify as a "philosophy"?) in that people will argue "it doesn't have to be like that" about the seedier or more objectionable elements. This "don't throw the baby out with the bath water" sort of approach can be seen in various situations such as when people argue that feminism is simply the "radical notion that women are human beings" and reject or down play the radical parts such as the belief that men are scum. Or, when people vilify Christianity because of the Crusades or because Hitler was supposedly a nominal christian.

In this way, Novaseeker writes that "Game is a way for generations of men who have been feminized to become more masculine again." I think it is very true that most women are attracted to men who are competent/confident and who understand their role as the leader and behave accordingly. If "game" helps men learn how to do that I don't think it is a bad thing. But, a lot of what is called "game" on the Internet seems to not just be about being masculine.

Some of the elements that I have read about are quite distasteful to me. For example, one well known blog on the subject of "game" put forth the idea that women are turned on by being afraid of their husbands. I find the idea repulsive. I have experienced very real fear of a man in a romantic relationship and it certainly did nothing to attract me to him and in reality resulted in only bad. I do think there is such a thing as a healthy "fear" for a leader that is about respect for the leader and concern about not displeasing the leader per se. But, I don't think it is good for that respect and "fear" to be a fear of physical violence.

So, I think when more "conservative" people (including yours truly) look at blogs about "game" that all of the distasteful parts are pretty tough to weed through to recognize whatever value there may be in some of the ideas. If there are ideas of merit for men who want to live a life that is pleasing to God in the philosophy of "game" it seems to me that it needs to be presented in a context that eliminates the godless elements.

Marriage: then and now.

I went to see the movie Julie and Julia today. I quite enjoyed it though perhaps many men would consider it a "chick flick" (there were 2 men in the theater with their wives/girlfriends). It was funny and touching and was about a subject interesting to me (and Meryl Streep was fantastic as Julia Child and had the most wonderful period wardrobe). It is a film about Julia Child, iconic American chef, cookbook author and pioneer cooking show host, and Julie Powell, a young woman who blogged her way through cooking all of the recipes in Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking in one year. I have loved Julia Child since I was a child for some reason. Maybe it was because I found her quite funny and she really was a marvelous teacher (I learned to make a fabulous brioche from one of her cookbooks among other things.....very user friendly). And, I read through the archives of Julie Powel's blog back in 2003 . So, I wanted to see this movie when it came out.

In the movie both Julia and Julie are married and their relationships play a large part in their stories. Both relationships are portrayed as good ones in the film and the husbands are portrayed positively for the most part. But, I noticed definite differences in the relationships of the two couples. Julia Child willingly accepts her husband's advice and help while Julie Powell states she does not need her husband's help yet runs to him when a lobster needs killin'. Julia Child is never portrayed as putting her interest in cooking and writing in front of her husband's work. Rather she moves from diplomatic post to diplomatic post across Europe with him and conforms the work on her cookbook to the needs of his career. Julia and her husband Paul Child are portrayed as having a very loving, playful, and sexually fulfilling relationship where Julia is always shown as welcoming of and enthusiastic about her husband's advances. Julie Powell complains that between her full time job and her blogging project that she doesn't have time for her marriage. In effect she puts a blog before her husband to the point that he complains about the lack of sex in their relationship and she is seen rebuffing his advances in order to cook recipes for the blog.

So perhaps it is not surprising that in the movie Julie Powell's husband walks out on her for a day because she is an admitted "bitch" (and apparently Powell has written another book called Cleaving: a Story of Marriage, Meat, and Obsession to be published later this year about an affair she had after her book about her blogging experience was published). I found the juxtaposition of these two marriages interesting though I doubt that the film makers (the film was produced by Nora Ephron) intended to present the picture they did. I think perhaps Julia Child's marriage would be viewed by many as more confining, however her more traditional model of marriage was "happier" than the "modern" version for both the men and women involved.

Preseason football

I would just like to say that I don't care how many pre-season games the Steelers lose now that they have beaten the Cardinals once again in a Super Bowl rematch. :)

Pictorial Evidence (Warning- possible "ew" factor)

Amazingly enough, two of my plants have managed to remain alive. Please note, I have not watered or otherwise cared for them in about 6 weeks since they looked like they were done for.

Resilient things, aren't they?

My finger is healing well. I'll spare you any of the more gory pictures* [you're welcome Ame :)], but here is a view from the front after one of my friends debrieded** it where you can see how straight and neat I cut it. I honestly had no idea that rotary cutters were that sharp. It seems a challenge to get it through more than 4 layers of fabric. It looks so much better already, I think it will be barely noticeable. Here's hoping all of the feeling comes back.





* I am not as weird as that sounds. I took the pictures for my students...a good step by step example of wound healing.

** Sorry if the word or image of debriedment gives you the heebie jeebies. I should also point out that the friend who did so is a qualified medical professional....not just a random "buddy" :)


Maybe one of these days I'll write a well thought out post.