culture

Power Smoothies

Over the past decade or so, whenever my daughter and I had a day off together, we’d go to our local lunch place “Power Smoothie”. It’s a Millennial take on the sandwich shoppe, serving  a variety of wraps and rice bowls with interesting combinations, and an extensive menu of Power Smoothies. These are shakes made with fruit, and sometimes yogurt, to which one can add vitamins and other supplements. This establishment tends to attract body builder types and other fitness devotees. My daughter and I, usually among the few patrons not in workout attire, like the sandwich wraps and sometimes enjoy a smoothie as a treat. For us, a fruit smoothie (just the fruit) is a treat–not a fuel. It is not about the “power” for us, but just a tasty blend of fruits that can be quite refreshing, especially on a hot day. But the Power Smoothie–it’s not only the Nectar of the Bods.

We’ve seen some Power Smoothies of a different sort in the news lately. The most serious (and threatening) Power Smoothie is Vladamir Putin. His reclaiming Crimea while the Ukraine’s interim government leans toward the EU has caused  a tense situation. Not long before this maneuver, some Americans were relishing Putin’s strength, particularly in opposition to their characterizations of Obama. This has been rather disconcerting. President Obama’s detractors have acted like they had a crush on (muscle-man) Putin, and when Putin behaved like the bully, placing troops along the border of Crimea, the Obama haters blamed Obama, insinuating that Obama was weak, which caused Putin’s actions.

People respond to flexed muscles. They see strength and power and like shows of force. For some, brashness is strength, and attaining power by showing strength is most important.

There has been another media sensation over the last several weeks, although this Power Smoothie is far outside the realm of geopolitics. Miriam Weeks, aka Belle Knox, is a freshwoman at Duke University. She has created quite a kerfuffle because she also works in porn. At first she hid her porn identity, Belle Knox, but after she revealed her identity to a frat guy, it wasn’t long before everyone else knew. Imagine that. She maintains that she works in the porn industry to help pay tuition. (Her parents just found out!) She has been on the talk show circuit recently, including Piers Morgan and The View, defending her right to work in porn. She insists that she feels “empowered” by this work,and that it is her choice, and shame on anyone who judges her negatively. She has received quite a bit of attention, including supposed death threats. The death threats, if true, are despicable, but her attention seeking is beyond combating death threats. She is brash and loves the attention, and knowing that she chooses to exploit her body, and feign innocence while insisting that she is empowered and should not be judged, is quite manipulative and disingenuous. For so many, sex trafficking and sex work is not a choice and is horrific and demeaning and ruins lives. If Miriam (Belle Knox) Weeks is happy to choose sex work, great for her! Even if she does need to work to help with tuition (which is questionable), she obviously does not consider sex work to have a demeaning side.

Choice is power. She thinks that she deserves respect because she has chosen her work, and she disparages those she thinks disparage her. For some, getting attention is intoxicating. It’s a sense of power. Miriam Belle Knox Weeks may feel powerful for being desirable doing porn at 18, and for causing a sensation at Duke and on national media outlets, but this Power Smoothie is not healthy. Real power is more than doing what one feels like when and where one wants. Power must include the strength of consideration of ones actions and words.

One more Power Smoothie has been on my mind for a while: Sheryl Sandberg. Sandberg is truly an upstanding and outstanding citizen. The COO of Facebook, Inc. has been ranked as one of the 50 most powerful women in business by several influential business magazines and journals. She is incredibly accomplished and engaged, having served on many boards and given numerous addresses, and last year, released her first book, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.  While I appreciated her intentions with Lean In and her attempts to create a new movement, I am not aligned with her. I thought the unintended consequence of her attempt to empower women to “lean in to their ambitions” was that it was supportive to those women lucky enough to choose when and where they want to work. For most women, other structures of power need to be transformed beyond a woman’s attempts to lean in.

More recently, Sandburg suggested banning the word “bossy”, as it has historically been used when referring to certain assertive behavior exhibited by girls (and sometimes women). This “Ban Bossy” campaign took off with some celebrities attaching their names, including Beyonce, Jane Lynch and Condoleezza Rice. While it might seem like a catchy title for a campaign to empower girls, I respectfully disagree with banning the word bossy. Being bossy is not the same as being a good leader. Bossy behavior is not a catch all for female assertiveness. Being bossy is being obnoxious. Bossy girls may garner temporary power and think they are strong, but we should be clear about what effective leadership is and isn’t. The bossy girls I knew did not become dynamic leaders–just demanding (and usually just demanding for themselves).

Rather than banning “bossy”, let’s teach leadership and make distinctions between leading and demanding; debating and obstructing; elevating and pushing. Bring back dignity, but let’s not pretend that nastiness and obnoxious behavior, or even doing whatever one wants whenever and wherever one wants is somehow just misunderstood leadership. Being bossy is not the same as being an effective or good leader. Let’s keep bossy in our lexicon to remind ourselves of negative behavior.

The Power Smoothies, although very different from each other, have attempted to push boundaries, claim territory as though there were only certain considerations, flex muscles for attention, and seek to shake things up. There are Power Smoothies in every domain. Certainly not all are nefarious, but power and strength are tricky.   Everyone seeks some sort of power and needs strength. The kind of strength and power that we want to extend can’t be left to Power Smoothies.  Whether it’s co-opting language from historic movements or moments that generate visceral responses, or grandstanding, we need to remind ourselves and our children of the power of critical thinking; of consideration and consequences (intended or not); of distortions and distinctions. The Power Smoothies blend it all together . Some are bossy; some are bullies; some are oblivious. Some are well intentioned, but it is in our power to clarify and to educate; to provide healthy alternatives.

Celebrity Crush

Many who admired Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s artistic abilities were crushed upon hearing of his untimely death from heroin. Because he didn’t “seem” like an addict or out of control, and in fact seemed to be one who harnessed his abilities and honed them, revelations of his relapse were surprising and sad. His brilliance and low key, mature manner off screen furthered the public’s impression of a master– one with incredible gifts and work ethic and  seemingly able to transcend the trappings and excesses of Hollywood and of American culture. Alas, here on earth, stars are human. We may not know the depth of his struggles, but the scene of his death revealed conditions that suggest profound struggle. Addiction is insidious and cruel for anyone. It becomes crushing not only to the individual who struggles to maintain, but for friends and family as well.

Earlier Sunday morning, like so many, I sat with my morning coffee reading the New York Times. I tend to veer away from a lot of celebrity stories, but this was The New York Times. And Nicholas Kristof. Initially I was intrigued because this week’s op-ed piece seemed like a departure for him. Then I stepped in the quicksand. He shared an excerpt from a letter penned by Dylan Farrow, daughter of Mia Farrow. I followed the link to her entire letter. I was utterly uncomfortable, as she recounted being molested by Woody Allen when she was 7.  I assumed that Dylan Farrow’s piece was a reaction to Woody Allen’s Lifetime Achievement Award(s), and the upcoming Oscars. Her anger extended to  Cate Blanchett and Louis C.K. for working with Allen.  She seemed to be suggesting that anyone who doesn’t reject Woody Allen must be complicit with this man she accuses of molesting her.  I felt tremendous compassion for her and wondered if something happened, even if that something wasn’t exactly as she wrote it.The readers’ comments included much support for her, which in that case, included hateful remarks about Allen. She was tormented. That was clear. Still, the whole thing was so uncomfortable to read, not only because it is an uncomfortable subject, but because many others got involved. I don’t want to read about their dirty laundry. I have compassion for people who have been made to be victims. Then came the counter piece in The Daily Beast written by Robert B. Weide, a documentarian of Woody Allen. I was reminded of the very messiness of this case from 20 years ago. Was Dylan Farrow’s experience a result of being coached as a kid by her mother Mia during a hideously nasty break up? Why would Mia Farrow and the newest sensation, her son Ronan Farrow, (supposedly brilliant??), tweet middle-school-esque tweets about Woody during the Golden Globes? Why do we need to be bombarded with this AGAIN after 20 years? The Farrow side wants to use a wide audience to discourage any support for Woody Allen. After all of this, not only do I definitely not know what happened, I don’t want to be bombarded with their stuff. I am not complicit in what may or may not have taken place 20 years ago. It is very sad. They need to heal. Whatever happened, and I have no idea what DID happen, has left Dylan traumatized and she and her family have remained bitter and unrelenting. Moreover, they are determined to keep crushing as they have felt crushed.

These two tragic stories unfolded on Sunday before the Super Bowl, when the Denver Broncos were crushed by the Seattle Seahawks. So many were hoping Peyton Manning would get the win–a likable celebrity  athlete with incredible talent who is disciplined and affable and without the negative gossip. But the truly superb defense of the Seahawks overwhelmed the Broncos, and once again, assumptions were challenged. Of course, the  Super Bowl commercials are the other great excitement along with the championship game. The anticipation of the commercials as the zenith of entertainment in 30 second increments (unless it’s with Bob Dylan), adds to the enjoyment of the Super Bowl as Super Event. (**For a week or so prior to the Super Bowl, there was quite a bit of scuttlebutt about Scarlett Johansson’s role in a Super Bowl commercial as celebrity spokesperson for Soda Stream and the seeming conflict of interest with being an Oxfam ambassador. She chose economic opportunity for herself, but also for Palestinians and for Israeli-Palestinian economic cooperation at Soda Stream.) The theme of celebrity in all the ads was sensational.Watching Super Bowl commercials has become a pastime, but this year’s all-star lineup made it that much more entertaining–even when the commercials themselves were otherwise not so terrific.  Star gazing is as old as humanity.

If we can learn anything after the celebrity immersion of Sunday, it is that life events can be crushing, and distortions abound. Celebrity sells. Certainly celebrity can be useful in attracting attention to worthy causes (and products), but the causes must go beyond the celebrities, and we need to create better resources for dealing with life’s crushes.

Going Upstairs Backwards

There’s nothing like pain to make us aware of our habits. Spasms redirect our attention to clenched muscles that seem to control us, rather than the other way around. Shooting, stabbing, burning, stinging, throbbing, aching,  hurting, sore…pain. Sometimes mere discomfort distracts us from our automatic lives, and asks us to pay attention. Agony is overwhelming, and suffering is more chronic misery. But the regular discomforts often steal our focus and energies, and ask us to do something different. With a different focus, we may adjust our posture or stance, or where we sit and how we proceed.

This is true of any sort of pain. Physical, emotional, psychological, existential pain asks us to attend to the sensation. We often get stuck when confronted with pain. Too often we compensate with unintended consequences. Sometimes we  consciously ignore the signals, as though giving in to a toddler’s temper tantrum will reinforce the tendency for eruptions. It is often hard to know how to deal with discomforts and pain so that they are  not reinforced or cause other damage. Some people wallow, others martyr, most numb themselves. Dealing with discomfort and pain as a lesson, is often reduced to avoidance.

Over the last 10.5 months, while strengthening myself physically, and taking the time to better manage my physical health, I decided to write. With no timeline in mind, or even a  roadmap or GPS, I wanted to experiment in a way that I had never attempted before, and create conversations. Forever committed to strengthening parenting and family life, education, Culture and culture, and healthy homes, schools and communities, I learned that I could be  critical  while optimistic. Moreover, I could learn from everyday discomforts and sometimes pain and even agony, both my own and societal, that there are always lessons. In looking back over the essays that span less than a year, I am reminded of political events and societal changes that, for some, were painful or uncomfortable . Some moments have been liberating culminations of long, painful battles that now demand societal realignment. Some moments seem to be flare ups of old wounds or negative habits. Time seems to move more quickly than it used to as we are exposed to so much more information at lightening speed, and it is easy to forget moments that affected us–that gave us opportunities to not merely get over the pain, but to learn from it. In reflecting upon the last 10.5 months, I am amazed at what is possible in less than a year. Some pain is chronic; some acute. Discomforts are inevitable, but as we redirect our focus and energies, and adjust our postures and stances, and even where we sit and how we proceed, we may not only mitigate some pain, but move ourselves further ahead in ways that we may not have even considered.

With a recent flare of back trouble, I have been having immense pain sitting and in many positions. Walking up the stairs has been another difficulty. This is not a new situation, but like most aches and pains (and worse), the situation flares from time to time. This time, I decided to try walking up the stairs backwards. It takes me a little longer (not much) and at first I needed more support. But I get up the stairs now! With fewer spasms! Of course looking back one sees how far one has gone, but more than that, sometimes looking at where we were and how we held ourselves and then tweaking it, allows us to be in a better, more comfortable and healthier position to elevate ourselves.

Guys’ Guise

Timothy Egan wrote an op-ed in today’s New York Times (January, 17, 2014) offering a thoughtful response to Brit Hume’s recent comment that Chris Christie is merely a “Guy’s Guy”–an apparently endangered species.

You may have heard Brit Hume, that is, Senior Political Analyst Brit Hume of Fox News, refer to Governor Christie’s problem. It’s not that he’s arrogant, paranoid, testy, bullying or too blunt for the P.C. culture. It’s just that he’s an “old fashioned guy’s guy” in a “feminized” world — an endangered species adrift on a floe of mush….

…He said, “By which I mean that men today have learned the lesson the hard way that if you act like a kind of an old-fashioned guy’s guy, you’re in constant danger of slipping out and saying something that’s going to get you in trouble and make you look like a sexist or make you look like you seem thuggish or whatever.”

I appreciate Egan’s clarification and answer to a particular concept of masculinity (which  Brit Hume, et al. equate with strength):

If you say something that genuinely offends women, it’s not because you’re a brawny dude, speaking freely, or even standing up to the culture patrol. It’s because you’re insensitive to people in general — the daughters, wives and mothers of many a manly man. Or, at the least, it’s because you’re outdated, like showing up for work at a tech company with a cellphone the size of a shoebox.

What has been missing from the discussion, however, is the subtext that being “feminine” or our supposedly “feminized” culture is an insult. “Masculinity”, whether defined by Brit Hume, Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, or articulated through Chris Christie, Phil Robertson (of Duck Dynasty fame), Sarah Palin, or many others who seem to defy the laconic male icon of yesteryear, seems to refer to a particular paradigm that they conflate not merely with gender, but with strength and superiority. Calling someone “a fag” or a behavior “gay” is meant to be insulting in this crowd. Small mindedness, is somehow rebranded as assuredness and strength. In this crowd, it’s bully for the bullies! Shooting from the hip is preferable to being hip–which, to the “Guys”, is just a feminized subculture of spineless socialists. In that universe, there is not a ying-yang balance of energies that we call masculine and feminine, each with attributes valuable to the health of humanity. It’s right and wrong (wrong = left, feminized); strong and weak; makers and takers. These are the masculine and feminine types of that world. In that world of “Guys and Dolls”, guys play with dolls.

The guys’ guise is feigning strength and security through righteous impasse. They not only feel threatened, and reject even their own possible evolution, much less the evolution of culture, (not to mention nature), but suggest that that which they describe as feminine is what undermines them. The ideals of strength and honor are not gender specific. Moreover, gender is beyond biology. It is a cultural construct, and like it or not, cultures evolve.

Our job as parents and educators and citizens is to build a better society and a healthier culture that elevates and broadens. Under the guys’ guise, being a loudmouth or intimidating is just being a guy, and guys are now victims of this henpecked culture. The guys’ guise is not really political (although it could easily be construed as such). It’s cultural. There are small minded people everywhere, and thugs and trolls left and right. Strength is not a guy issue. It is not the same as intransigence. Flexibility is not a gender issue. The habits of mind (and culture) that include thought, reason, consideration, reflection, flexibility, appreciation and expansion build strength. That’s not a guy thing, despite the guys’ guise.

Target

Yesterday, the revelation that over 40 million people may have been hacked at Target over the last few weeks was stunning and terrifying. I suspect that Target wasn’t the only target. I would not be surprised to learn that other stores were also targeted. Certainly the holiday shopping season (the fifth season from Thanksgiving to just after New Year’s) is the perfect time to breach a retailer’s system. Of course, it’s not just the retailer who is ruined. Millions of lives are, at best, disrupted. For some, the impact may be horrific, especially at this time of year.

It is easy to feel paranoid these days. So much seems out of our control. To be up to speed (which is quite fast), one must surrender to more and more channels and networks, further and further removed from an original action, that through incredible technology, allows actions and transactions to occur instantaneously. We tend to forget that because so much of our transactions are instantaneous, that there is actually a network out there–wherever there is. It feels immediate and therefore gives us the sense of interaction. Or maybe we are just more willing to surrender to what seems so much easier than waiting. We feel like we can accomplish so much more than we used to. But, there are daily reminders of nefariousness. It is easy to feel like a target.

Like terrorism, cyber hacking seems to prey on obvious targets through innocent civilians who are merely living their lives. It is cruel and terrifying, and after each incident, we redouble our efforts to create better protection. But the fear and paranoia lingers as we increase safety measures. There is a sense that we are always targets.

When we are able to put aside the threats of terrorism and hacking, we worry that we are being targeted by the NSA, or advertisers, or even by political ideologues. It seems as though we are targeted by anyone and everyone. While some target us for our potential business or donations, others target us as “the other”, and therefore the problem: teachers; unions; single parents; poverty stricken; Wall Streeter; drug addicted; super wealthy; politician; left; right; religious; atheist; ……You are either with us or against us. Marketers seek their target audiences. We target others and get targeted by others all the time.

While it is easy to be concerned about nefarious targeting and the fear of being an innocent victim, I am actually more concerned about the prosaic targeting that is part of our culture and constantly exhibited by individuals regardless of beliefs or station in life. We live in echo chambers. It is tribal. We seem more focused on targeting frustrations at others than on working through problems, integrating different components. Yes, compromising.  The holidays may be a time to reflect upon targets. We like New Year’s resolutions as they redirect our attention toward personal improvement (usually not at the affect of others). When we target others, we diminish them. They become one dimensional. When we include others–even differing opinions and ways–the target shifts toward building; toward more dimensions.

2013 was a year of many difficulties that became compounded by targeting individuals or agencies for blame, rather than acknowledging what (or who) was problematic and  focusing on improvement.  We had plenty of target practice this year, perfecting the aim with our weaponry, literally and figuratively.  We can aim for much better–changing the old targets. There is so much that we can’t control–or rather–there is only so much that we can control. We can choose new targets that do not diminish. The narrow targets, those that are from a single point of view, diminish. This holiday season, when we try to take a break from our troubles and  enjoy our families and some peace, we can redirect and begin a new target practice. Don’t target others. Aim positively. Happy Holidays!

Blurred Vision

In a world where we use our pocket sized phones to take instant pictures, it’s easy to assume there is no need to learn about apertures or even focusing. Just notice something that grabs your attention and click. Attention grabbing seems to be the force that propels us, keeping us flitting from one distraction to another. It used to be that grabbing one’s attention meant that someone’s  curiosity and interest could be stirred and then engaged and focused. Grabbing one’s attention was a prelude to a deeper encounter. More and more, it seems like grabbing attention is an end in itself. No need to focus much any more. Something else will grab our attention in an instant.

Of course, attention grabbers have always been around, but our capacity to focus and sustain attention seems to be diminishing, as more and more of us seem to be constantly distracted. Like a person who struggles with sustaining attention in several domains– most notably in academic and other executive type pursuits as well as social ones, but may be “hyper-focused” in highly specialized activities–our culture seems to be struggling, even disabled, by our current disorder. This attention grabbing and emphasis on distraction is being played out most cynically in Congress. The focus on governing has been lost to attention grabbing. We need to refocus.

I have often suggested in my comments on culture, education, and policies, that we can think differently and be more creative in all those domains. As a culture, we are losing focus on what matters because we have blurred vision. Many on the right and the left have 20/20 hindsight. They refer to earlier times when their visions produced focused agenda that had clear (positive) results (while the other side clearly had negative results). Now, in a divided country, it’s as though there is either a right eye or a left eye, and to use both might cause us to become cross eyed and more visually impaired, rather than binocular. Binocular vision gives us depth perception–the ability to see in three dimensions. Just as we need to adjust our eyes to different light conditions, we need to adjust our eyes to the conditions that darken our lives today and that cause us to lose focus . Crafting lenses that allow us to see more clearly close up as well as in the distance must be usable for both eyes. (Some of us like progressive lenses, but at least bi-focals are in order!) Some would say that the right and the left each have clear vision, but the eyes don’t function together and thus leave us impaired.

Blurred vision is cloudy. It is unfocused and can lead to confusion and potential danger. Corrective vision allows us to refocus and yes, to see better. We have been myopic, and allowed our attention to be grabbed continuously as we have lost focus on policies that enhance our lives and improve our culture (and education). We need to correct our vision in both eyes,not merely try to weaken the other. We need greater perspective and depth to enhance our vision and sharpen it. Attention grabbing won’t go away, but we can strengthen our ability to focus on what is central and necessary, rather than on what is peripheral. Perhaps, in order to correct our blurred vision and see more clearly, we will have to get a new prescription. It’s important to have regular examinations. I think some of the prescriptions we’ve tried are past their expiration dates.

Making Change

What do cashiers have to do with The March on Washington? It’s probably not what you think.

As a child, I was regularly asked to walk to the neighborhood market a few blocks away to get some groceries for my mother. The grocers knew my family, along with many others in the neighborhood. Still, my mother taught me to always check the receipt (and give it to her), and she taught me how to make change. If the items totaled $17.45 and I gave the grocer (or cashier) $20.00, I had to know how much change I should get back.

As a young child, mental math (as we used to call it) was not my forte. In early elementary school we were taught math facts. We were drilled with flash cards. It was basic memorization of addition and subtraction, and then, multiplication tables, soon to be followed by short division flash cards. As one who never had a flair for remembering numbers or dates, or memorization at all, this mental math approach was arduous and mostly problematic for me. Yes, I did force myself to learn elemental math facts, but I was utterly turned off and avoided whatever I could. At least I did learn the basics. I learned that I had to subtract: $20.00-$17.45= $2.55.

But subtracting in my head (especially when I was quite young) was likely to lead to careless errors. So, my mother taught me how to make change. Essentially, she was teaching me that I could add instead of subtract. I remember struggling with the concept because I didn’t get that I was merely doing addition instead of subtraction. It just seemed like a magic trick that it all added up. Then, when I got the concept of counting back change from the total to the amount I gave, it was no longer like a magic trick–just magic in the way that something perfect seems magical.

Flash forward several years, and cash registers become calculators. Cashiers no longer  need to do anything but make sure that if the cash register says $2.55 change,  they can count the correct bills and coins. They do not have to figure out the change. For a generation now, cashiers have not had to do any math beyond counting what they are told to provide. On the occasions when I do make cash purchases, I am always dumbfounded that cashiers don’t (and often can’t) make change. They can’t figure the difference. There’s no human agency in making change; no critical thinking. I suppose it doesn’t matter all that much if cash registers are more efficient calculators than the people who use them, but I wonder about this ability (or lack thereof) to make change.

For me, the process of making change resonated more than merely knowing the numbers. That has always been true for me. It struck me this week as we have been commemorating the 50th anniversary of The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom,  that while August 28, 1963 marks the historic date, the processes of change inform how we make change. Noting the differences from where we started to where we are now is not sufficient if we are to be the ones who make change. We must understand the processes of change–of additions, subtractions, multiplications and divisions, and miscalculations.

The March on Washington 50 years ago was historic for many reasons. Of course, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream ” speech was pivotal, and remarkable, and truly one of the greatest pieces of oration in our history; but the peaceful participation by so many was equally historic and inspiring. Everyone who rallied at the mall in Washington was participating in making change, and inspired so many others to become agents of change. It is easy to just take the change that others make. It is easy to allow changes to be dictated by technology. It is more important, though, to be able to make change.

Assisted Living Facility

Living independently is a particularly American ideal. Individualism emphasizes the value of self-reliance and independence. The concept of independence as individualism has progressed toward libertarianism with increasing zeal in more recent years. As a culture, we have developed the attitude that dependence, or needing assistance, is negative. Not only have we as a culture historically looked down upon those needing assistance, but we have also looked down upon care givers. Those who care for others are often regarded as unskilled, perhaps  less intelligent and/or  less educated, or without leadership abilities. They are often considered beneath the “real” workers and leaders. Historically, women have been the care givers, and when women did work outside the home (perhaps before marriage, until feminism kicked in), the jobs were usually seen as extensions of care giving–teaching, secretarial work, nursing. These were so-called “pink collar” jobs, as were other jobs that recruited women, including stewardesses, hostesses, and waitresses. When women began to have greater access to any careers, and some brave men ventured into what was known as “pink collar” jobs, some job titles changed to reflect more gender neutrality.  Stewardesses became flight attendants. Waiters and waitresses are now referred to as servers. Secretaries, usually responsible for correspondence, morphed into administrative assistants. Although secretaries were mostly female pre-feminism, the title “administrative assistant” signified a broadening of the administrative tasks and responsibilities (including project management and other administrative tasks beyond correspondence), but also signified a break from the pre-feminist association with (female) secretaries.

Now, as we forge ahead attempting to balance demands of the workplace with the demands of a home life, and we continue to expand our notions of gender and identities, we continue to wrestle with our cultural notions of independence. We still tend to equate maturity with independence– not with care giving. We still tend to equate ability with independence– not with sharing. A facility for assisted living refers to a place for those whose abilities may be diminished, and support services are available as needed without 24 hour care. We think of assisted living facilities as places designed to provide freedom and dignity for those in need of support for activities of daily living. What about our own internal facilities for assisted living–our own capacities to support one another?

We tend to not only devalue care givers and others in supportive roles, but we have even ascribed blame to them in relation to those who have suffered from addictions and behavior problems. The care givers are blamed as the co-dependents and/or the enablers. That is not to say that negative symbiotic relationships don’t exist. Of course they do,and often when dealing with destructive behaviors and relationships, we must be aware of the potential for co-dependency and enabling. But assisting living, is productive. Some people have a greater capacity for assisting and supporting than others, but like any capacity, we can learn and practice and develop. We can even elevate ourselves and others. Nurture may be part of nature, but it is also honed. We can develop our capacities to assist others, but we must also develop our awareness of the specialness of that capacity.

Living requires assistance and assistants. We delude ourselves into thinking that we are most dignified when we are independent. We are most dignified, when we give of ourselves to others and use our efforts to support others to be their best. We can develop our assisted living facility. This moves us and our culture forward.

Two Thousand and Thirteen

A couple of weeks ago, I caught the AFI Life Achievement Award 2013: A Tribute to Mel Brooks. It was a warm and funny salute to the master of mishugas, Mel Brooks. It’s fitting to throw in a few yiddishisms when mentioning Mel Brooks, as he knew how to tickle a funny bone with his gravelly voice and “old world” syntax, which in many ways, “normalized” or assimilated ethnic and linguistic differences. One of the beautiful aspects of our evolving American society is inclusion. While many lament the loss of the “good old days”, I am grateful that we have a richer and more vibrant  American culture as we include so many previously discrete, self-identifying ethnic symbols, foods, music, and words, and share in globalization and becoming more cosmopolitan. In this day and age, Maureen Dowd and Mel Brooks can both use the word mishugas (craziness). There’s plenty of craziness to go around!

Watching the film clips from those Mel Brooks movies, and listening to so many colleagues, young and old, with whom Mr. Brooks worked and inspired, it was impossible not to notice the societal changes (and thus, comedic changes) over many years.  Even in today’s world, Mel Brooks’ brand of humor still tickled. I’m not sure if I was reveling in the comedy or the nostalgia. Perhaps both.

This morning, for no apparent reason, (although maybe my Mel Brooks nostalgia was lingering unconsciously), I recalled a favorite album I had as a kid, 2000 and Thirteen. It was a sequel to the hilarious 2000 Year Old Man–a sketch (and album) with Carl Reiner as an interviewer, asking the 2000 year old man (Mel Brooks) what life was like back in the day. Way back in the day!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRWF86lPvA0&list=PLf9dnbdesgTvxR4-t-N_ChGUso58B0o3K

(Although the link says The 2000 Year Old Man, it is in fact from the album 2000 and Thirteen.)

How different we are in 2013. We have expanded our concepts of gender and marriage, (along with other cultural concepts) and although the movement toward inclusion is still met with fears of loss and misunderstanding, which often manifest in cruelty, we are nonetheless forging ahead in a world that would not have been recognizable when 2000 and Thirteen was released (1973). We still struggle with education and employment; with balancing work and home; with affordable health care; with violence, and other political, economic, and societal challenges, but many of these issues are human issues–not race or ethnic, male or female, gay or straight. Many of the cultural constructs of gender (and sexuality) that were the stuff of comedy in the middle of the last century, have evolved. We have a much more ethnically diverse society now in 2013, and we have a more global approach to living. It is a beginning, even in 2013. We continue to bump into old patterns and close mindedness mixed with fear and hate.  And, we must figure out how to manage when there are those who seek destruction. We’ve come a long way, but we’re still learning and evolving in 2013.

But then there’s Mel Brooks. His mocking of Hitler and Frankenstein and all movie genres as they included monsters or evil doers, was his revenge. Comedy was his weapon. That is not to say that he (or we) should not take threats or acts of evil seriously. We must. But being able to mock evil (monsters and destructive ideas) weakens the hold that evil has on us. From Jonathan Swift to Stephen Colbert, satire is more than humorous defense. It awakens us and reminds us of our values and of structures of power. We may laugh, but we may then get to work on humanity.

During the AFI tribute to Mel Brooks, Cloris Leachman, who was not only funny and graceful, gave Brooks what I thought was the ultimate compliment. She called him a mensch. In Yiddish, a mensch ( literally, human being) means “a person of integrity and honor.” I would add that “honor” is not at the expense of anyone else. That’s really what it’s all about. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preference, economic situation, title, education, ability, etc……just be a mensch! Forty years have elapsed between 2000 and Thirteen and 2013. We’ve made plenty of progress in many domains, but there is tremendous room for creating a society of mensches, regardless of one’s origins.

Summer Camp

July 2013 is winding down, but summer camp is still in session. Detroit officially declared bankruptcy, the largest municipal bankruptcy in U.S. history thus far, and there has been significantly more media attention on Britain’s royal baby, Boy George, and on Carlos Danger, aka Anthony Weiner. The hype over the royal baby has been almost comical, as it has no bearing on anything in the near future. As for tragi-comedy….the over exposure  of Anthony Weiner (yes, that’s right) is beyond absurd. Have we had enough of this camp?

There is so little discussion of issues of importance, whether they relate to the future of Detroit and other cities, or the other candidates in the New York City races (besides Spitzer and Weiner and their overly public so-called private lives). How many people know about the political experiences and stances of the other candidates? Municipal government has become increasingly more important as urban population growth continues to rise. While the decline of Detroit has been known for some time, the actual effects on public services and foreclosed buildings, among other issues plaguing the city, have recently been illuminated in light of the declaration of bankruptcy. These are important matters for all of us– for Detroit and for metropolitan areas across the country.

Unbridled ambition, tangled sexcapades, attempted redemption….this is the stuff of the arts, not politics. That doesn’t mean that we ignore ridiculous behavior of politicians or other potential leaders. We know the stories and the arguments. We’ve lived through this too many times in real life, much less in literature, theater, opera, symphonies, ballets, poetry, art…. The most unsavory part of these stories isn’t the sins that were committed or mistakes made, but the attention seeking that keeps the rest of us from getting beyond the drama (or cartoon) that has become what we refer to as news.

This summer camp has not been a refuge from school and parents. This sort of camp has been great for comedians, and I’ve enjoyed the late night fodder. If only it were just the stuff of the arts or entertainment. It’s been over the top, at the expense of seriously considering policies and actions that could actually improve lives. There are endeavors that we can take in our communities that elevate us, and that contribute to positive discourse and impact others in positive ways. Everyday actions that inspire and support deserve more attention than the distractions from important matters and those who seek the attention of gawkers. After summer camp, it’s back to school.