So I knew when I finished my first post on this that I wasn't completely happy with how I finished it. I got carried away on the soap box part probably, and may have not provided as much relevant information as I probably ought to have.
Let's rectify that shall we?
At the outset, the authors bely their fundamental approach in quoting Wordsworth "the Child is the father of the Man". This is of course to say that what happens to us in boyhood and adolescence permanently shapes us as men.
"What do boys need to become emotionally whole men? And what is the cost to boys of a culture that suppresses their emotional life in service to rigid ideals of manhood?"
The chapter titles are sometimes obvious at first glance, and other times not as much. The authors proceed to lay out a very convincing case for the variety of disservices that boys are trained into by the culture, both at large, and within the peer group.
For example, the concept of emotional literacy - education or ignorance. If you ask a boy how he feels about something, you will often get no response. We do not actively engage boys in exploring their feelings as a way to master the circumstances they are put in, nor teach them to understand their feelings in order to gain mastery over their actions/reactions to an event.
All children look for visual queues in their environments, and the fundamental ideal portrayed for men in commonly available media forms men of a certain type. Sports idolize physical performance, and many of the sports favor outright violence against others as a means of testing strength. Praise and accolades are given the winners, losers are shunned. Commercials show toughness, and for instance truck ads, are all about how you can only be a man if you have a certain vehicle. Another example of my own, is from He-Man. Many of my peers watched that show growing up. What does it teach unconsciously about men? That the Prince is weak, because he runs away and will not fight. He is uncomfortable claiming the emotional mantel of being able to protect his people, so he must use an alter-ego. Who gets the accolades? The alter-ego. The real man. Now, I don't believe that was a active choice by the writers of that show, they were trying to advance the notion of the secret identity, and probably some sort of humility. But I don't think it comes off that way now.
A key point the authors of the book make, in various ways through out is that "the difference between boys who overcome adversity and those who surrender to it always comes down to the emotional resources they bring to the challenge" "we have to come to grips with the fact that every boy has an inner life, that there hearts are full. Every boy is sensitive and every boy suffers."
That just the first chapter. There is a very good chapter about how there are serious institutional challenges with how boys and their inherent physicality do not fit the design of the US Education system writ large. For sure, there are teachers or a school here or there that are more receptive to it than others, but in general, schools from K all the way thru 12 are build around a girl learning model rather than a flexible boy learning model. Boys just need to express their feelings through physical activity. And sitting still for long stretches of time does not do that justice.
The 3rd chapter is about discipline. "harsh discipline - by which we mean both physical punishment in the form of hitting or spanking and verbal intimidation, which includes belittling, denigrating, scapegoating, and threatening - is not the answer any child. Not Ever." As you might imagine, it's hard to understand exactly how to proceed. As a boy I was on the receiving end of several of those behaviors, but not as much as some others I know. I think it falls into the category of the fact that there are many ways to raise a child, but in the end, just getting through it doesn't mean that it was all well done, nor that the child (now adult) is in a healthy place emotionally from the experience.
"For all of a boy's life, regardless of the nature of his transgressions, he is likely to receive swifter, harsher treatment than a girl would receive, often harsher than reason would justify."
We all know this is true. And all sorts of studies show this is the case from toddlerhood thru adulthood. Its a fact of our culture. The authors go on to discuss alternatives in discipline, and as throughout the book, provide some poignant vignettes condensed from their counseling experiences.
This is one of the components of the book that makes it very relateable and compelling. The use of short stories, sometimes only a few paragraphs that underscore key points, and examples of real world boys who are having all sorts of troubles, and the key underpinnings to the behaviors, as well as some of the strategies they help persuade the boys to employ to help them turn things around.
There are more sections to discuss, and I'll be back for more later. For now, parental duties call.
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Monday, July 25, 2011
How a book about Russian Nobility, Dinner Parties (lots and lots of them), and Freemasons became one of my favorite reads of the year
I know, I'm shocked too. Time to ramble.....
Bad News- Due to my Mother being in town for a few weeks, I couldn't make the Saturday meeting. Very disappointing, but as Joe pointed out, Our schedule masters us sometimes.
Good News- Due to the desire to remember what having a sort-of social life feels like, I quit my night job. Should give me lots more free time. Should mean I can post more than once every two months.
And how am I celebrating my first "free" night?
Bad News- Due to my Mother being in town for a few weeks, I couldn't make the Saturday meeting. Very disappointing, but as Joe pointed out, Our schedule masters us sometimes.
Good News- Due to the desire to remember what having a sort-of social life feels like, I quit my night job. Should give me lots more free time. Should mean I can post more than once every two months.
And how am I celebrating my first "free" night?
Friday, July 22, 2011
War & Peace (again)
I really didn't want to miss this book club meeting, but that's life.
Brief explanation: I committed to something for work that I thought I could do after the meeting only to find out later (my fault for not investigating) that it would take place just far enough away that my request that it be "after noon" did not save my attendance.
So, I'm not even master of my own schedule.
Therefore, I feel inclined (well, it's more self-indulgent than that, I suppose) to provide a few comments on the second segment of War & Peace.
First, as an administrative matter, I have discovered that my Kindle version and the print version do not match up on "book" or "part" numbers well at all. This may or may not have led to some confusion about specific citations and potential allegations of telepathic communication, but who's keeping score? We'll just agree that mistakes were made and be happy that I coordinated with the sanctioned print version. *
* It's all he-said-she-said stuff, really... and I don't live in the past (and thank God for that). Why are you looking at me like that?
I thought this second 300-page section was very good (too short on war scenes, but good nonetheless). I'll break down the parts of which I took particular note.**
** HELL YEAH I chose not to end that sentence with a preposition! Winston Churchill would be proud... but he may admonish me for reading a book that glorifies the French.
1. BEST QUOTES:
"You'll die and all will end. You'll die and know all, or cease asking."
- Pierre's inner dialogue. Sweet quote.
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom."
- Pierre again. He talks beautifully when he isn't speaking out loud.
"And thou art more foolish and unreasonable than a little child who, playing with the parts of a skillfully made watch, dares to say that, as he does not understand its use, he does not believe in the master who made it. To know Him is hard... For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness..."
- Condescending Mason to Pierre.
"We civilians, as you know, have a very bad way of deciding whether a battle was won or lost. Those who retreat after a battle have lost it is what we say; and according to that it is we who lost the battle of Pultusk."
- I can only imagine a politician's response: Yeah, BUT STILL!
"I am alive, that is not my fault, so I must live out my life as best I can without hurting others."
- Andrei at a time when they should really keep sharp objects away from him.
"At that meeting he was struck for the first time by the endless variety of men's minds, which prevents a truth from ever presenting itself identically to two persons."
- Narrator... Tolstoy. My favorite quote so far in this book or maybe this year.
2. WAR SCENE GOES 1-FOR-1.
This War scene was awesome and it was the only one, so maybe it won't be such a sore subject. It was far superior to any ballroom dancing or fox hunting sections (which were unbearable). I'm hoping Tolstoy won some converts with this battle. Andrei gets wounded, the Army gets completely outclassed, and somehow everyone declares victory. It's so realistic! I especially loved Count Buxhowden's excuse that he could not command because of a saddle sore to avoid having to answer for stealing supplies from his own Army to feed his soldiers. That was a riot.
Also, the scenes in the fog were really, really well written.
3. EMPERORS MEET
I loved the scenes when the Emperors met and the little nuances of the pageantry and protocol. And how the characters seemed to feel uneasy about being amongst people they are usually trying to kill, but must be respectful toward and from whom they accept medals. Awkward, but interesting.
4. ILLUMINATI!
I love how Pierre gets too involved with the Masons and then upsets them by going all "Illuminati" on them. Does anyone else see the irony here? Anyone? Do I have to spell it out? (Fine, twist my arm).
OK, so I read a lot of books about people who believe in conspiracies (not conspiracy books, but the PEOPLE who believe those conspiracies). Most of them think the Masons ARE the Illuminati. As always they are all in cahoots according to these nut jobs.
To make a modern analogy that popped into my head as I read this: Pierre goes in front of a 9/11 Truther meeting and says, "I'm going to just say it... those planes were holograms covering missiles." AND THEN EVERYONE AT A TRUTHER MEETING LEAVES SHAKING THEIR HEADS AT HIM! He went too far even for them. Isn't that like being mocked at a Bob Seger concert for wearing a Kenny G shirt?***
*** Fine, I'm the only one who thinks this is great. I can accept that. Forget all of you.
5. NATASHA GOES ALL NUTTY
To summarize:
Natasha gets engaged awkwardly to a war hero who is by all accounts honorable and smart; sits through a year of waiting because a grown man can't get his dad to consent; gets bored by waiting (and bored by his letters); goes to meet his future in-laws (who are almost as crazy as she is); meets a good looking younger man whose father earlier tried to find a foolish rich girl (Mary) for him to marry because he's so hopeless; falls in love with said loser after knowing him for a grand total of 15 stare-filled minutes; cancels her engagement to Mr. Right; tries to elope with already-married-broke-loser-knucklehead-blackguard Anotole; tries to kill herself only to self report so she can be cured (attention whore); and then basically exits stage left after (figuratively) kicking Pierre in the teeth for good measure.
She's a real catch. In a related note, all the nicest men I know are single.#
# Do I have to spell it out, ladies? Stop dating losers. It had to be said.
6. PIERRE AND ANDREI
Really a tour-de-force of introspective debate about how we should live life.##
## Lesson one, when you free your serfs, make sure you actually give them freedom. D'oh!
Brief explanation: I committed to something for work that I thought I could do after the meeting only to find out later (my fault for not investigating) that it would take place just far enough away that my request that it be "after noon" did not save my attendance.
So, I'm not even master of my own schedule.
Therefore, I feel inclined (well, it's more self-indulgent than that, I suppose) to provide a few comments on the second segment of War & Peace.
First, as an administrative matter, I have discovered that my Kindle version and the print version do not match up on "book" or "part" numbers well at all. This may or may not have led to some confusion about specific citations and potential allegations of telepathic communication, but who's keeping score? We'll just agree that mistakes were made and be happy that I coordinated with the sanctioned print version. *
* It's all he-said-she-said stuff, really... and I don't live in the past (and thank God for that). Why are you looking at me like that?
I thought this second 300-page section was very good (too short on war scenes, but good nonetheless). I'll break down the parts of which I took particular note.**
** HELL YEAH I chose not to end that sentence with a preposition! Winston Churchill would be proud... but he may admonish me for reading a book that glorifies the French.
1. BEST QUOTES:
"You'll die and all will end. You'll die and know all, or cease asking."
- Pierre's inner dialogue. Sweet quote.
"All we can know is that we know nothing. And that's the height of human wisdom."
- Pierre again. He talks beautifully when he isn't speaking out loud.
"And thou art more foolish and unreasonable than a little child who, playing with the parts of a skillfully made watch, dares to say that, as he does not understand its use, he does not believe in the master who made it. To know Him is hard... For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness..."
- Condescending Mason to Pierre.
"We civilians, as you know, have a very bad way of deciding whether a battle was won or lost. Those who retreat after a battle have lost it is what we say; and according to that it is we who lost the battle of Pultusk."
- I can only imagine a politician's response: Yeah, BUT STILL!
"I am alive, that is not my fault, so I must live out my life as best I can without hurting others."
- Andrei at a time when they should really keep sharp objects away from him.
"At that meeting he was struck for the first time by the endless variety of men's minds, which prevents a truth from ever presenting itself identically to two persons."
- Narrator... Tolstoy. My favorite quote so far in this book or maybe this year.
2. WAR SCENE GOES 1-FOR-1.
This War scene was awesome and it was the only one, so maybe it won't be such a sore subject. It was far superior to any ballroom dancing or fox hunting sections (which were unbearable). I'm hoping Tolstoy won some converts with this battle. Andrei gets wounded, the Army gets completely outclassed, and somehow everyone declares victory. It's so realistic! I especially loved Count Buxhowden's excuse that he could not command because of a saddle sore to avoid having to answer for stealing supplies from his own Army to feed his soldiers. That was a riot.
Also, the scenes in the fog were really, really well written.
3. EMPERORS MEET
I loved the scenes when the Emperors met and the little nuances of the pageantry and protocol. And how the characters seemed to feel uneasy about being amongst people they are usually trying to kill, but must be respectful toward and from whom they accept medals. Awkward, but interesting.
4. ILLUMINATI!
I love how Pierre gets too involved with the Masons and then upsets them by going all "Illuminati" on them. Does anyone else see the irony here? Anyone? Do I have to spell it out? (Fine, twist my arm).
OK, so I read a lot of books about people who believe in conspiracies (not conspiracy books, but the PEOPLE who believe those conspiracies). Most of them think the Masons ARE the Illuminati. As always they are all in cahoots according to these nut jobs.
To make a modern analogy that popped into my head as I read this: Pierre goes in front of a 9/11 Truther meeting and says, "I'm going to just say it... those planes were holograms covering missiles." AND THEN EVERYONE AT A TRUTHER MEETING LEAVES SHAKING THEIR HEADS AT HIM! He went too far even for them. Isn't that like being mocked at a Bob Seger concert for wearing a Kenny G shirt?***
*** Fine, I'm the only one who thinks this is great. I can accept that. Forget all of you.
5. NATASHA GOES ALL NUTTY
To summarize:
Natasha gets engaged awkwardly to a war hero who is by all accounts honorable and smart; sits through a year of waiting because a grown man can't get his dad to consent; gets bored by waiting (and bored by his letters); goes to meet his future in-laws (who are almost as crazy as she is); meets a good looking younger man whose father earlier tried to find a foolish rich girl (Mary) for him to marry because he's so hopeless; falls in love with said loser after knowing him for a grand total of 15 stare-filled minutes; cancels her engagement to Mr. Right; tries to elope with already-married-broke-loser-knucklehead-blackguard Anotole; tries to kill herself only to self report so she can be cured (attention whore); and then basically exits stage left after (figuratively) kicking Pierre in the teeth for good measure.
She's a real catch. In a related note, all the nicest men I know are single.#
# Do I have to spell it out, ladies? Stop dating losers. It had to be said.
6. PIERRE AND ANDREI
Really a tour-de-force of introspective debate about how we should live life.##
## Lesson one, when you free your serfs, make sure you actually give them freedom. D'oh!
Monday, July 11, 2011
Raising Cain
So I finished Raising Cain this weekend. It's a book that has been on our shelves for a couple years, just waiting for me to get to it. I've not been reading it exclusively but still it took me several months, although its not terribly long. Raising Cain is written by a pair of psychologists, both with significant experience dealing with counseling adolescent boys, and it shows.
The authors, Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson, don't pull any punches. Frankly I was confronted with some uncomfortable reminders of my own experiences growing up. I was trying to decide how to really discuss this, and what follows is but a partial take.
Generally, from a methodology/layout perspective, the book is divided in to some sub topics, and they usually spend 20-30 pages giving examples, small story segments lifted straight from therapy sessions, and weaving a solid story line. I was impressed that all the segment seemed equally thorough, informative, and purposeful.
As to content.....I know these people. The boys that authors describe, I know them. In some cases the scenarios they describe could have been lifted straight out of my memories. Several others are things I'm aware of others close to me went through during late elementary-high school. Some of it was just amazingly frustrating to realize, that as a kid, I was subjected to it. Actually, I was sad to know that all us men went through that. The subculture that exists within boyhood and coming of age is just unbelievable. I was disturbed to be reminded of some of the things that I experienced.
As a father and parent, I know I would never actively design a system that exposed kids to any of this stuff. I realize that growing up is to an extent learning to deal with challenges on your own, but that doesn't excuse the culture of cruelty that exists and is actively promoted and re-created day in and day out. It's not just permitted, it's tacitly approved. I realize that I can't change the culture for my son, but this book helps me realize that I need to help prepare my son for the things that he will be exposed to, things that will specifically demean him on purpose for no reason that actively promotes anything healthy.
This book also has helped me remember that I was not, am not alone. I went through some pretty dumb things, experiences that have colored my outlook and my approach in some situations since. Many of us did. To some extent, we men should all probably have some sort of PTSD episodes just based on stuff we went through. Hell, some of us probably do regularly.
I don't actively remember pushing any of my compatriots into situations that would have caused some of these reactions. And if I did, hell, I'm sorry. I really am. I wish there had been something like this book to help me see it earlier. Not to mention help our parents, our teachers, and the other adults in our lives see what was, no what IS going on..
This book ought to be read by any father, and pretty much every wife / mother. We all can't fix something unless we are ready to acknowledge the issues exist. And that we need to do better. We owe our kids, and our selves as kids that much.
The authors, Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson, don't pull any punches. Frankly I was confronted with some uncomfortable reminders of my own experiences growing up. I was trying to decide how to really discuss this, and what follows is but a partial take.
Generally, from a methodology/layout perspective, the book is divided in to some sub topics, and they usually spend 20-30 pages giving examples, small story segments lifted straight from therapy sessions, and weaving a solid story line. I was impressed that all the segment seemed equally thorough, informative, and purposeful.
As to content.....I know these people. The boys that authors describe, I know them. In some cases the scenarios they describe could have been lifted straight out of my memories. Several others are things I'm aware of others close to me went through during late elementary-high school. Some of it was just amazingly frustrating to realize, that as a kid, I was subjected to it. Actually, I was sad to know that all us men went through that. The subculture that exists within boyhood and coming of age is just unbelievable. I was disturbed to be reminded of some of the things that I experienced.
As a father and parent, I know I would never actively design a system that exposed kids to any of this stuff. I realize that growing up is to an extent learning to deal with challenges on your own, but that doesn't excuse the culture of cruelty that exists and is actively promoted and re-created day in and day out. It's not just permitted, it's tacitly approved. I realize that I can't change the culture for my son, but this book helps me realize that I need to help prepare my son for the things that he will be exposed to, things that will specifically demean him on purpose for no reason that actively promotes anything healthy.
This book also has helped me remember that I was not, am not alone. I went through some pretty dumb things, experiences that have colored my outlook and my approach in some situations since. Many of us did. To some extent, we men should all probably have some sort of PTSD episodes just based on stuff we went through. Hell, some of us probably do regularly.
I don't actively remember pushing any of my compatriots into situations that would have caused some of these reactions. And if I did, hell, I'm sorry. I really am. I wish there had been something like this book to help me see it earlier. Not to mention help our parents, our teachers, and the other adults in our lives see what was, no what IS going on..
This book ought to be read by any father, and pretty much every wife / mother. We all can't fix something unless we are ready to acknowledge the issues exist. And that we need to do better. We owe our kids, and our selves as kids that much.
Selling your Cells
"Whether you think the commercialization of medical research is good or bad depends on how into capitalism you are." Baruch Blumberg.
One fundamental point: like it or not, we live in a market-driven society, and science is part of that market.
Should we be able to sell our cells? Most people say yes. A more complicated question would be whether scientists and doctors should have to pay to use cells we "abandon" (for those on one side) or "have stolen" (for those on the other side).
"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" is a book that will make you think and you will debate with anyone you talk to no matter which side you take. Dave and I basically yelled at each other without ever taking an actual position. We switched places like innings in a baseball game.
I tend to think that we routinely abandon our cells and I don't want to open the door to people marketing their cells. My prediction is that we'll just end up signing another form we don't read, and people will think all is well. Until we sign "form number 354 that we don't read," we'll be outraged at the lack of prior notice.
The solution? INTRODUCE "FORM NUMBER 354 WE DON'T READ"!
Bam! Solved!
Everyone wins. Patients get their "notice" they won't read and scientists get to keep curing people and saving lives without being sued for using what we would have flushed down a toilet. And, when someone gets all uptight about their cells, they can take that appendix home in a jar and let it watch them not sue anyone from the kitchen table.
When you think about it, we lose all outrage about rights as long as we're given the opportunity to hand said rights away unintelligently. I know if I were trying to get people to chill out and let me benefit completely from their cells without paying for it, I would offer them a thickly-worded releases and let the cash roll in! (I joke, but it is being done, so it obviously works)
Well, I would actually fully inform them and not keep anything from those who refuse to sign... I would also insist they dispose of said cells themselves, but that's another matter.
At any rate, I do understand and accept both sides of the argument. The author makes it clear just how egregious previous abuses were. Then again, this all happened when it was legal to bar black patrons from sitting at lunch counters, so it's really not that shocking (not excusable, but not shocking either). Notifications are important, and our choice to ignore what we sign is just Darwin messing with us as usual.
So, although I am sympathetic to those who are actually exploited for their cells, I am also a proponent of good medicine and curing disease. Without use of HeLa cells, we might be a few steps past leaches, so maybe we should calm down about suing the doctor and enjoy not having polio.
At this particular moment, not having polio seems so much better than letting the Lacks family stare at a jar. On the other hand, they should at least have some medical coverage. (See, this isn't an easy topic!).
The great thing about this book is that my take could be completely different if I were to write it tomorrow instead. And, a book that makes me think that much about an issue has to rank as among the most compelling of the year.
One fundamental point: like it or not, we live in a market-driven society, and science is part of that market.
Should we be able to sell our cells? Most people say yes. A more complicated question would be whether scientists and doctors should have to pay to use cells we "abandon" (for those on one side) or "have stolen" (for those on the other side).
"The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks" is a book that will make you think and you will debate with anyone you talk to no matter which side you take. Dave and I basically yelled at each other without ever taking an actual position. We switched places like innings in a baseball game.
I tend to think that we routinely abandon our cells and I don't want to open the door to people marketing their cells. My prediction is that we'll just end up signing another form we don't read, and people will think all is well. Until we sign "form number 354 that we don't read," we'll be outraged at the lack of prior notice.
The solution? INTRODUCE "FORM NUMBER 354 WE DON'T READ"!
Bam! Solved!
Everyone wins. Patients get their "notice" they won't read and scientists get to keep curing people and saving lives without being sued for using what we would have flushed down a toilet. And, when someone gets all uptight about their cells, they can take that appendix home in a jar and let it watch them not sue anyone from the kitchen table.
When you think about it, we lose all outrage about rights as long as we're given the opportunity to hand said rights away unintelligently. I know if I were trying to get people to chill out and let me benefit completely from their cells without paying for it, I would offer them a thickly-worded releases and let the cash roll in! (I joke, but it is being done, so it obviously works)
Well, I would actually fully inform them and not keep anything from those who refuse to sign... I would also insist they dispose of said cells themselves, but that's another matter.
At any rate, I do understand and accept both sides of the argument. The author makes it clear just how egregious previous abuses were. Then again, this all happened when it was legal to bar black patrons from sitting at lunch counters, so it's really not that shocking (not excusable, but not shocking either). Notifications are important, and our choice to ignore what we sign is just Darwin messing with us as usual.
So, although I am sympathetic to those who are actually exploited for their cells, I am also a proponent of good medicine and curing disease. Without use of HeLa cells, we might be a few steps past leaches, so maybe we should calm down about suing the doctor and enjoy not having polio.
At this particular moment, not having polio seems so much better than letting the Lacks family stare at a jar. On the other hand, they should at least have some medical coverage. (See, this isn't an easy topic!).
The great thing about this book is that my take could be completely different if I were to write it tomorrow instead. And, a book that makes me think that much about an issue has to rank as among the most compelling of the year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)