Man of Your Word

Every now and then, we all get knocked back on our heels. It might be finally writing the 400th page of your new novel and realizing you aren't even close to being done. Or maybe you woke up and decided that after a decade slaving away you just don't like your job anymore. Maybe you got too much sun and now realize that warm toes beat cold weather every time. Regardless of why you are taking the hits, and we all take 'em, there are a couple of things we've all tried when hit with a wake-up call.

Deciding to start a new relationship and chain someone to the bow of your personal misery ship is one of the Very Bad Ideas.

Let's face it, drama is inevitable in each of our little worlds. As we stumble along our own roads we collect varying degrees of baggage at some points and discard it at others. When it comes to jumping headlong into a new relationship you probably want to make sure you can tread water by yourself a little first.

It isn't that you won't grow and change and evolve in a relationship. But a certain core of stability must be present so that you have something upon which to build. If you are both emotionally-stunted and only quasi-available, the best you can hope for is some severely dysfunctional chaos. Which might take the form of some really passionate interplay or some wildly distracting conversations. But ultimately, without a foundation, anything you build together will probably end in rubble with first few tremors.

Sadly, the best advice is the oldest advice. You'll know you are ready to be with someone else, when you are capable of being by yourself. Only you can really say when it's time to leap from the sidelines into the Great Dance. From time to time you might even end up on the floor because you let go of the rail a little too early. Those are the times we might need to lean on other partners and friends who help us limp back to the comfort of the couch with cuddling or some casual flings. If leaning on them in your crisis helps you cease being crippled, then lean heavy. But only for a season. If you want your limbs to limber and strong you must learn to lean on them alone.

Partners in the Great Dance are only evenly matched when they can both stand on their own, come together on their own terms, and bring their independent strengths and leverage. If you are properly equipped then by all means, hit the floor. If you aren't properly equipped you should definitely be prepared to hit the floor, but we prefer you don't drag us down with you.

Labels: reflections, relationships

I read quite a few blogs and thanks to my incredible father keep up with quite a swath of the writing in theological arena of the day. I am a voracious reader, but he puts me to shame. I'm sure the fact that he has more time on his hands (he's earned it!) counts for something but still, I wish I could keep up with him.

Recently, seemingly by coincidence, I've read quite a bit on the topic of marriage and family and relationships. Almost without exception, there is a tendency to bash the role of men in the breakdown of the family. If you go back to the widely cited National Marriage Project, a study from Rutgers, you see that in general people think that it is men that don't want to be married. They attribute this inability to commit to several reasons including:

• It is easier to get sex outside of marriage.
• Living together already gives them the benefits of marriage.
• The likelihood of divorce is high and carries significant financial risk.

This is hardly the exhaustive list, but it's pretty representative. Most of my reading has been offline, but you can easily find lots more examples of writers here and here and here and here and here and here and here who are basically saying the same things.

Now the issue I have with this is simply that it takes two to tango.

This one-sided view of state of family today is completely horrendous. It's is like we are simply ignoring that women want easy access to sex and will manipulate to get what they want. That women aren't also wanting to hold off the responsibility of children until later in life. That men haven't been taken to the cleaners for years by women in our grossly prejudiced legal system. Check out the 2004 National Scruples and Lies Survey for more fun facts.

If women want sex as much as men, they are delaying children as much as men, and they are scared of divorce as much as men, don't they have an equal incentive to avoid a marriage commitment? After all, for those who do want children, we've removed any single mother stigma and it's now elevated to a status position. We've removed the divorcee stigma and have certainly weighted the divorce courts significantly in favor of the woman, especially if children are involved.

So let's do the math. They have equal disincentive to get married, more incentives to not get married, less risk and more reward in the unfortunate event of divorce. Yet this whole deterioration of family values and the decline in marriage rate is solely due to men being selfish. Puh-leez.

Don't get me wrong, I think men are generally selfish (I know I am!) and many may find themselves guilty of some of the reasons cited for why they avoid marriage. I just think that's only half (less than, actually!) the story.

Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.
-- 1 Corinthians 7:1,2

I guess my decision to rant about this, even in light of the possibility for it to be misinterpreted, stemmed from recent reading where my experiences and experiences of people I know were poorly represented. In the past few years, I've personally had to break off more relationships because of sexual or cohabitational pressure from the woman, then for any other reason. In this day and age, I know it can be shocking to find someone who just isn't that interested in sex. My personal experience is that I've known way more women who were using men, than men who were using women. Of course, that's just my life. Your mileage will vary.

I didn't intend this to sound specifically disparaging towards women, if that's how you take it, I don't really care to hear about it. From my point of view, there isn't just one answer or one story. There are lots of perspectives and angles. It just really bothers me to be painted (along with my friends) with the brush of villainy while we are busy dodging victimization by women whose selfishness goes unchallenged. Maybe later I'll bash all the men I see doing stupidly selfish things and taking advantage of women, just to keep the posts balanced.

Wow. That was pretty raw for me. Let the flames begin.

Labels: reflections, relationships

One of my favorite actors is James Woods.  Seriously.  He has an ability to breathe life into his roles as  if to squeeze tar from a turnip.  He definite is one actor who holds twenty pounds of talent in a ten pound sack.

My minor fascination with him today is the roles he continues to choose. The man James woods portrays is the man I aim to be.  Now I am not so naive as to elude that James Woods is the man he portrays. I am aware, he is an actor.  But his unerring choice of roles that so vividly gives voice to the person I aspire to be, must have an anchor and foothold on his true nature. As is well known, the more you become a behavior, the more that behavior becomes you.  I do not desire to be the man James Woods is, but the man James Woods portrays.

From the first time I was privileged to witness him in Diggstown, to the panache he demonstrated as the villain of The Specialist.  Most recently, his role in the new television show the Shark as a man evolving on the redemption road brings to mind my own meanderings.

In his characters I find myself drawn to a few key constructs.  He is unflinching and resolute regardless of circumstance.  He is adaptive and volatile but with rationale and intent intact and obvious in each endeavor.  Decisive and direct, but not malicious. He pursues with prejudice even the hard choices and continues amidst conflict with comportment. His words speak of the world as it really is, his actions speak of the world as he would have it be.

Resolving the paradoxes and conflicts we each face every day is a challenge for any man, whether  his words are scripted or not.  If in my own walk I were to respond as James Woods would, then I would be the man I would be.

Labels: aspiration, relationships

As is often the case when I have a little downtime, my mind wanders and rambles in fits and starts.  Eventually I fall asleep and if I'm lucky wake up having forgotten the self-inflicted stress survived the night before.  Today was not like that.

In those times, I start to read.  My quiet time is first in the morning and nothing can calm like scripture. Many times the case is that my thoughts aren't immediately quieted, but given some perspective.  Often times it takes a while of walking in the day before something finally strikes home.  Today was a little like that.

Sexless in the city was writing about...well a bunch of things, really.  But in her post Taking the road that's given I found some words remarkably relevant words...

For years these women were the ones I envied, but I’m finally seeing that just because their path is different from mine, it’s not necessarily smoother or better. It’s just different.

Of course, I had to invert the gender, but it sure smacked me senseless how important that little distinct can be.  I'm no stranger to politic, so the phrase "It's just different." is one I've heard and used myself a thousand times.  In this case, I needed only to hear it thrust back on my own thoughts to have the scales drop from my eyes and realize this little attitudinal adjustment was perfectly precise in only the way God can be.

My mental gymnastics had little to do with point this exquisitely eloquent writer was undertaking.  But in His way, it was just what I needed.  I guess sometimes the words of a strangely sexy and sometimes saucy scribe are supremely suitable for screwing my head back on straight.

Thanks Anna.

Labels: relationships

Maybe there is a difference in how Christian men and woman approach the dating scene.  Or maybe there is just a difference in how GOOD people approach the dating scene.  Theviewfromher expanded on a post at all kinds of time that frankly I could have let alone. Evidently she got to me because I couldn't help myself but post again today. Hehe.

I'm not sure about the rest of you guys, but when I'm on a weekend mission trip or doing service projects for the community, the last thing I want to be distracted with is some lady flirting me up. ;-)  I'm there for the service,  not to meet people.  If you are working beside me at a function, I'd like to believe that's why you are there too.  If I felt you weren't, I'd probably think you were a little sketchy.

Okay, so that probably wouldn't happen regardless.  Let's be honest, I haven't been flirted up in like...well weeks, at least.  But the point still stands.  The sum total of our advice for becoming active and social cannot be service projects and weekend missions, can it?  Oh, and batting cages.  Can't forget that totally stereotypical proposal now can we.

Why is it that our choices are either Church Stuff, or Gross Bar Stuff? I meet ladies all the time at Church Stuff, but invariably they can't keep up or even hold a conversation.  And I meet ladies all the time at non-Church Stuff and I almost always enjoy the conversations more with them.  I join my friends in Gross Bar Stuff on occassion and while I do meet people they are invariably not what I am looking for and this is expected.  So as you can imagine, if I were truly looking for a companion and not just being social I would find myself in that middle category that was sorely neglected in both of these posts.

Sure coffee shops are one way to go, but I find it very limiting.  Concerts, art shows, frisbee on the beach, house parties, fundraisers, bookstores, amusement parks, minature golf, bowling alleys, food courts, these are all places I've meet people.  Some are activity based, I'll concede, but some are very passive also.  I think the key is that these places give you something more than location to start the conversation with.  Consider something simple like the difference between watching how someone eats in a foodcourt and watching them drink coffee while reading.  Listening to a lecture or standing in line to ride the ferris wheel is bound to stimulate much more of a conversation than a poppyseed muffin and some Chai tea.

Labels: relationships

Recently there was a Washington Post article about The Problem with Men.  It was blogged about in several good posts including by Coloring Outside the Lines and theviewfromher.  It's not worth noting that each of these authors was female.

The core article, while giving a nod to a balanced view is fundamentally alarmist in its slant towards key symptoms with little or no perspective on underlying cause. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for alarmist if it gets people discussing root causes. ;-)

Each of the various posts made me consider the core issue from different perspectives which I assume was the point.  As I considered a variety of responses, I decided to just knock them down in the order they came to me.  So while I'll repost on this subject again with other angles, this one covers only my initial reaction.

Reading the article my first response was "What did you expect?"  In today's workplace we are required to give women special treatment but equal pay.  The legal system gives preference to mothers over fathers at almost every turn. Our child support system is woefully corrupt. Casual sexuality leaves men completely disadvantaged in the dating scene. The education system is in majority geared towards a liberal arts education whereas the workforce continues to give preference to the aggressive and technically adept. The number of support and specialty resources for women vastly outstrip the parallels for men. And so on...whine, whine, whine.

Don't get me wrong, many of the protections afford women and mothers are necessary, crucial even. But if a woman can expect equal investment from a company while reserving rights not available to a man for example maternity leave, that's clearly shifting the balance of power.  When a woman can choose to leave a relationship for no cause and still enforce primary financial dependence on the man, clearly the balance of power has shifted.  When the scholarship basis is weighted almost 4 to 1 in favor of female applicants and the cost of education is stratospheric clearly fewer men or going to consider higher education.  Because I'm a coward I don't even want to get into the other more inflammatory examples.

Rest assured I am not so naive or ignorant as to be unaware that there are many examples of how power has been and continues to be abused by men.  I concede that men can really stink.  My point is that anyone can really stink, gender-neutrally.  As we continue to emphasize legalities that are gender-specific we only make this whole problem worse.

I'm all for gender-equality (or race equality or preference equality or height-equality or pc/mac-equality or...) but it has to actually be about equal, not just a form of special treatment.  Let me give one clear, simple example.  It doesn't make every point and surely has multiple impact points.  But it specifically showcases my point about equal pay and special treatment.

As a business owner I currently have to invest equally in women and men in my workforce.  However I must bear an increased cost in the health-care of women that I don't have with men.  As the business owner I am required to fund the cost of preserving a womans job during a maternity leave, regardless of the business disruption. In this simple situation I have employees that cost me considerable more but I am expected to pay them equally.  Of their own accord, they can choose with their health and family planning decisions to increase my costs and the associated business disruptions by more than 100%. Clearly, these employees are not being treated equally because of the special protections afforded one group by our legal system.  Keep in mind this isn't a bogus example, these are actual facts from current reality.  Because these costs are real, and the business must plan to cover them, the average pay available for anyone in that position is pulled down.  This impacts men because now they are faced with taking a lower wage job with no additional benefit to them.  Women however are afforded the equivalent pay but with added benefits. This isn't just one level of inequality it is actually a double impact. A negative impact for a man and a positive incentive for a woman.

When faced with a myriad of special treatments and challenges such as this, it is becomes possible to understand how this environment is demoralizing at a minimum, and ultimately debilitating. With women getting special treatment in the workplace, the legal system, and the education system, did we really expect men to continue being competitive?  If we increase their challenges to success (in the workplace, the social scene, and in education) and hobble them seemingly at random when they attempt to integrate (the child support system, the divorce courts, and the disparity with benefits and support resources). We can't expect them to do as well as women at keeping up, even if we assume they aren't completely beaten-down and demoralized to begin with.

Add to all of this the idea that women are, generally, more capable then men, is it really such news to discover that men aren't being as "successful" as women?  I use the terms "successful" in quotes because it was used in many of the posts and is another aspect I intend to discuss in future follow-ups.

Okay, so I covered my first response and gave away more of my controversial opinions than ever before.  Well, what's a blog for anyway? Flame away.

Labels: relationships

I've been a little busy to keep my posts flowing, but The View From Her has been doing an excellent job stimulating dialogue lately.  As I was visiting family this weekend I kept getting the probing questions and suggestions about relationships and women in general.  In all honestly, I'm just not at a place where that is a priority for me right now.  I'm in a very self-centered place with work and other things going on.  Being aware of this, I've been deliberately not thinking about the whole relationships and dating thing.  Having it pushed back in my face repeatedly, regardless of how good-intentioned, was more of a nuisance than I was ready to accept.

As I caught up on my blog reading, I noticed the theme of physicality and sex pervading the posts.  That's cool, I kind of expect it from a writer with as much focus on male/female relationships as Her.  But I can't help but wonder if pushing us to consider our views and perspectives on physicality and sex on a continuous basis is healthy.  Don't get me wrong, I find the posts and discussion on these subjects as interesting as the next guy.  But for someone trying to keep God at the center of my thoughts, and not be continually impacted by sexual desires, it frustrated me a little.

Can't the non-sexual aspects of interpersonal dynamics be as intriguing and frought with pitfalls?  Or is sex really 99% of the issue with the relationships even in the Christian community?  (That last was rhetorical, I'm not that naive.)

I guess the seed of my post came from asking the question to myself...  "She seems so savy and in the know, where's the depth I've so greatly appreciated in keeping my Walk matching my Talk?"  Rough I know, but that's just how I roll.

Perhaps I need to remember that even the ones who seem to have it so together still face the same struggles.  Or maybe, the reason they seem to have it so together is because they actually face the same struggles head-on. Could it be that addressing this area that is most troublesome in such a persistent fashion is the key to practical success for this area?  Maybe she's on to something with this...

Point taken, here's some slack.

Labels: aspiration, relationships

Really struggling.  I'm a very easy-going person and the interpersonal stuff usually comes easy for me.  Unfortunately, I've been choosing to grow.  Which always means self-inflicted pain of the highest order accepted by a smile wherein your teeth are clenched.

Can I relate to you the way you relate to me?
Can you help me out with my chemistry?
I don't want to be precieved the way I am.
I just want to be percieved the way I am.
- Chapstick, Chaped Lips And Things Like Chemistry

It's remarkable to me how easily we as humans deal with near-constant paradox and dichotomy throughout every facet of life.  We encourage people to deal with us in ways that are counter-productive and conflict-driven.  Then we stress over the fact that we are misunderstood or ineffectual in our relationships.

Sometimes I think the point of a friendship is to have those people in your life who will see past the image you actually present to the world and instead drink up the image you'd like to present to the world.  All the while, encouraging you that the person you actually are is valid, coherent, and suitable.

Labels: relationships