http://www.mediaite.com/online/one-per-center-peter-schiff-visits-occupy-wall-street-produces-18-minutes-of-civility/
You have to admit that this Peter Schiff has got some guts. How many of us would go down to a rally where people are complaining about us and deal with them in honest dialog. I am not saying that I totally agree with Schiff because I don't. But I highly respect a man who choose to have dialog in a situation that is not completely under his control. Especially since as a self-identified top one percent of our society he can easily keep his detractors at bay.
I hope his interaction allows some of those detractors to see that the people they oppose are, well people. Not just stereotypes of the uncaring rich. I hope he can see that his critics as individuals as well. Not just a rabble that has to be put down. When we disagree with people we are so tempted to dehumanize them and react to our stereotype of them. That is why dialog like that initiated by Peter Schiff is so important. We can still disagree with others but do so in ways that help us to find solutions instead of merely demonizing them as the enemy.
So God bless you Peter Schiff. You may not have the the right answers to our economic crisis but you do have the guts to put your ideas to those who disagree the most. I hope that I can dialog with my critics if I am ever in a similar situation. That sort of dialog is the only way we will be able to find those right answers.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Christian but not conservative?
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/conservative-evangelicals-implore-gop-presidential-hopefuls-tone-down-181946140.html
For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
For me it is more interesting to read about something unexpected than to read about something that confirms mainstream expectations. Mainstream expectations is that evangelicals are political conservatives and thus adhere to all of the aspects of a politically conservative agenda. To read about how these evangelicals, who to the best of my knowledge are Republicans, make this break from conservative hysteria is quite refreshing. Perhaps it is through ministries to Hispanics that they have more of concern for immigrants and not so harsh with them. Regardless of the reason, they clearly break the conservative mold that we are tempted to put them in.
But this brings up an even bigger issue for me. Since I am a political independent, I often wonder how people can hold to either a politically progressive or conservative framework. You see, a progressive or a conservative political ideology is socially constructed. Those who hold to them naturally believe that they have the best solutions to political problems. The conservative believes that what is called "conservatism" is the best answer to issues as varied as tax reform, abortion, national defense, environmental issues, educational policy etc. The progressive believes that what is called "liberalism" is the best answer to those issues as well.
Here is what gets me. Neither the conservative or the liberal is consistent in their answers. Come on now. How can the conservative state that the government should be smaller and then push for an expansionist foreign policy? How can the progressive state that the government should pay so that a woman has a "choice" in abortion but not pay for school choice which would give her options on where to send her kid to school? I am certain that both the conservative and the progressive feels comfortable with that they have an underlying philosophy that explains such disparities. I remain unconvinced.
This is why I see political ideology is socially constructed. It is not driven by some underlying philosophy but rather it serves a certain segment of the population at a given time. We create an identity because of that philosophy and then find ways to adhere to that identity. If a new political issue comes up that we have not yet encountered then we try to find the "conservative" or "progressive" perspective on that issue and then accept the one that fits our political identity. This allows us to belief we have the right answer to a variety of issues we have not thought deeply about even while we conceptualize enemies (i.e. the other political philosophy) that we can blame all of society's problems on.
That is why what the evangelicals did was so cool. They basically broke the the political philosophy they support because they have an underlying philosophy that overrides their identity as a political conservative. By doing this they show that they are independent thinkers and dare I say it, critical thinkers. Hey maybe they even have a little trouble-maker in them.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Is this diversity?
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20110915/OPINION03/309150052/Vanderbilt-flirting-religious-suppression?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Hmmm. It seems that Vanderbilt has a new definition of diversity. Let me see now. It is not that clubs have to allow anyone to join that wants to, which seems like a reasonable request. They must also make no distinction when it comes to the leadership of the club. Follow this to its natural implications then a Tea Party must be given an opportunity to lead the college Democrats and a Marxist gets a shot to take command of the Ayn Rand club. Seems kind of stupid to me.
But it is also kind of dangerous. First, I am not surprised that it seems that Christian clubs seem subject to this more than other kinds of clubs. Conservative Christians have a reputation for intolerance but all clubs have to be intolerant to some degree. Even something as benign as a biking club has to be about biking and not about ballet. This does not make the biking club intolerant but it is about what the focus of the club is. I will be more likely to accept that there is not an anti-Christian bias when Vanderbilt goes after the Atheist club for not having enough Muslims or the Feminist Majority for its insufficient number of men in its leadership.
Second, in trying to be more "diverse" this sort of ruling actually discourages diversity. To see this let's play a thought game. Assume that Baptist U. decides to have such a rule. Baptist U tends to attract a lot of white Christians who are more likely to be Republican than Democrat. So when the College Democrats decide to start a club those Republicans can just join and then take over the leadership of that organization. In fact if there is enough of a Republican to Democrat disparity then any organization that departs from a conservative orthodoxy will be taking over by white conservative Republicans.
But let us be honest with each other. Having too many white conservative Republicans is not a problem on most state campuses. Students are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. Conservative Christians tend to be underrepresented on these campuses. The groups that can overwhelm those they disagree with are more likely to be progressives. Even if Vanderbilt is not using this ruling to go after conservative Christian groups, and I am skeptical that they are not doing that, merely enforcing this ruling evenly among all groups can reduce a rich diversity of opinions among the groups on campus to the same progressive voice droning out from all the different groups. This rule does not enhance diversity. It kills real diversity.
It is clear that student organizations have to be able to select their own leadership if they are to retain their unique voice and character. An atheist club should not have to have a born-again Christian as the president and making decisions to pass out bible tracks at their meeting. A Republican club should not have to put up with a liberal as the leader and have to sponsor a Michael Moore file night. These things are ridiculous. Yet these are the type of things that come from rules like the one at Vanderbilt. I guess the leaders there would be perfectly happy if all of the student clubs support some degree of progressive political and/or religious ideology. They are free to feel that way. But that is not diversity. That is boring.
Sincerely,
Trouble-maker
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
The Male/Female Thing part 3 - Nature or Nurture
I have spend the last couple of post showing how despite the desire to get away from traditional roles that we still live them out here in the United States. It is not as simple as men dominating women with their aggressiveness. I have used dancing and my study on height to show how women respond more positively to the male aggressiveness and to the image of men as masculine protectors. Let's face it. If women really did not like aggressive men we guys would get a clue and become less aggressive. We simply like women too much.
Now is this something that is innate or is this gender difference purely cultural. As a sociologist I know that at least some of it is cultural. We know that is the case because while gender roles are a cultural universal, how those roles manifest themselves vary by culture. But is what we call masculinity all cultural? I am beginning to have my doubts about that.
I suspect that there is some innate basis for the aggressiveness of men. It may have evolved in evolution. It may be given to us by God. But it seems that despite being told that we guys should be more sensitive that we still act like Neanderthals and many women seem to love it.
I have no big prescription as to what to do about it except that we should be more open to the possibility that male and females act differently because we are different in ways that are not just physical. Saying that is taboo since we like to believe that there are no real differences between men and women. Some want to believe that all of the different economic and social outcomes between men and women is due to sexism. Sexism exists and it is a problem. We need to deal with it as much as we can. But as they say it is also true that at times "boys will be boys" and that this is different from what the "girls" will do. We probably should factor that in to sex differences as well.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Now is this something that is innate or is this gender difference purely cultural. As a sociologist I know that at least some of it is cultural. We know that is the case because while gender roles are a cultural universal, how those roles manifest themselves vary by culture. But is what we call masculinity all cultural? I am beginning to have my doubts about that.
I suspect that there is some innate basis for the aggressiveness of men. It may have evolved in evolution. It may be given to us by God. But it seems that despite being told that we guys should be more sensitive that we still act like Neanderthals and many women seem to love it.
I have no big prescription as to what to do about it except that we should be more open to the possibility that male and females act differently because we are different in ways that are not just physical. Saying that is taboo since we like to believe that there are no real differences between men and women. Some want to believe that all of the different economic and social outcomes between men and women is due to sexism. Sexism exists and it is a problem. We need to deal with it as much as we can. But as they say it is also true that at times "boys will be boys" and that this is different from what the "girls" will do. We probably should factor that in to sex differences as well.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Male/Female Thing part 2 - Height
I am a data nerd. There I said it and now I feel better. Yes it is true that I get some sort of sick enjoyment out of the collection of data. Maybe that explains what happened when I had a friend come over a few months ago and when he left we had an whole new research project in mind. I was excited. I got to collect more data!!!!!
Well our project was to look at the role that height plays in physical desirability, especially as it pertains to women. As a single tall man I am fascinated, and gratified, by the interest that tall women have in men who are even taller. So we set up a survey with open ended questions to find out why height was so important to both men and women.
I have not fully analyzed the data. But one factor comes out again and again to me. A good percentage of the women, not most but a sizable minority of them, mention "protector" or "protect" as part of their reason why they want a tall man. These women are college students and the vast majority of them are under 30 years of age so we are not talking about older women living out values from a traditional time. A good percentage of women are looking for men to protect them.
Now how can a taller man be a better protector than a smaller man? He is not in a better position to protect them from economic ruin is he? Furthermore while we still have differences in the economic opportunities of men and women, they clearly are more equal than in the past. It is reasonable for a woman today to think that she does not need a man for financial protection today, which is something that was less true in the past. I guess a tall man makes a bigger target for a gun and can offer physical protection. But are women really looking for men to be physical beasts? That sounds kind of barbaric to me. But it does suggest that the traditional male role of protector has not gone away in our society.
We talk about equality in our society but traditional gender roles are alive and well in our society. We can make all the rules we want and try to enforce some sort of PC mentality on people but we tend to run back to traditional gender perspective. What are we to think of this phenomenon?
One possibility is that traditional gender roles have been so embedded in our society that we have not had enough time to get rid of them. Perhaps if I do this research fifty years from now the word "protector" will not show up. Perhaps if I do the research in Europe women would not talk about wanting men to protect them. So in time we may see more egalitarian gender attitudes. The alternative possibility is that traditional gender attitudes are embedded in our very nature. Sociologists hate such possibilities and as a sociologist I should not bring it up. But I am a trouble-maker.
What is clear is that the narrative that men and women are alike in their romantic aspirations is not accurate. Men do not look for women as protectors. We fool ourselves if we think of men and women as wanting the same thing in relationships. Distinctive gender roles is alive and well in the United States. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the values we bring to that question.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Well our project was to look at the role that height plays in physical desirability, especially as it pertains to women. As a single tall man I am fascinated, and gratified, by the interest that tall women have in men who are even taller. So we set up a survey with open ended questions to find out why height was so important to both men and women.
I have not fully analyzed the data. But one factor comes out again and again to me. A good percentage of the women, not most but a sizable minority of them, mention "protector" or "protect" as part of their reason why they want a tall man. These women are college students and the vast majority of them are under 30 years of age so we are not talking about older women living out values from a traditional time. A good percentage of women are looking for men to protect them.
Now how can a taller man be a better protector than a smaller man? He is not in a better position to protect them from economic ruin is he? Furthermore while we still have differences in the economic opportunities of men and women, they clearly are more equal than in the past. It is reasonable for a woman today to think that she does not need a man for financial protection today, which is something that was less true in the past. I guess a tall man makes a bigger target for a gun and can offer physical protection. But are women really looking for men to be physical beasts? That sounds kind of barbaric to me. But it does suggest that the traditional male role of protector has not gone away in our society.
We talk about equality in our society but traditional gender roles are alive and well in our society. We can make all the rules we want and try to enforce some sort of PC mentality on people but we tend to run back to traditional gender perspective. What are we to think of this phenomenon?
One possibility is that traditional gender roles have been so embedded in our society that we have not had enough time to get rid of them. Perhaps if I do this research fifty years from now the word "protector" will not show up. Perhaps if I do the research in Europe women would not talk about wanting men to protect them. So in time we may see more egalitarian gender attitudes. The alternative possibility is that traditional gender attitudes are embedded in our very nature. Sociologists hate such possibilities and as a sociologist I should not bring it up. But I am a trouble-maker.
What is clear is that the narrative that men and women are alike in their romantic aspirations is not accurate. Men do not look for women as protectors. We fool ourselves if we think of men and women as wanting the same thing in relationships. Distinctive gender roles is alive and well in the United States. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on the values we bring to that question.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Friday, September 16, 2011
The Male/Female Thing part 1 - Dancing
As a sociologists you can learn about society even while you are learning about something else. For example, this summer I decided to brush up on my country and swing dancing skills. I did so in part because I was tired of going to parties where they played country music and having to sit out the dances. I must say it has been fun although at times it can be frustrating to learn a new skill. I am much more confident with my academic skills than my dancing ones and that is part of the challenge. But daring to try new things can be a topic for another blog.
Now I have to be brutally honest with myself. When it comes to this partner type of dancing, where it is not freestyle, then I am not that great at it. I am getting better. But I am not nearly as good as I would like to be. Part of it is my ignorance of how you are suppose to do things. But I gain more knowledge with every dance. But part of it is my lack of skill in leading the dances. Do not know if that will change any time soon.
Anyone who does country or swing dances knows that this is one of the last areas where men are unashamedly expected to take the lead. Like any good academic I have learned about the patriarchal nature of our society and do not want to be one of those guys that pushes women around. You know. The bad guys. But a lot of taking the lead in dance is just that. More than one woman has complained that I do not push hard enough with my movements and they do not know what to do. A good male dancer has a firm enough "lead" that his female partner knows what he wants and can execute it.
I am working on being firmer with my lead but I know this will take a little time with me. The idea of using my strength to guide a women into doing something can feel like I am forcing a women. And I do not want to do that do I. I mean all of the feminist have talked to me in my head about the horrors of male dominance. Hey. I can blame the feminist for being a bad dancer. Heaven help me if I take blame for myself for not being as good of a dancer as I would like.
If it was just the dancing then that would be one thing. However, I have made other observations while attending the dance classes. You see these classes happen at a night club. And it seems that the guys who are most aggressive in pursuing dance partners are the ones who seem to have none of the soul searching I have about pushing women around on the dance floor. They have no problem with the lead on or off the dance floor. They also seem to be the ones that the females get exited about when they are approached by them whether it is for dancing or just basic social interaction.
Is it possible that dancing is a metaphor for male/female relationships? Despite all of the lessons we have learned lately about egalitarian male/female relationships that men taking a lead is a natural process. Sociologists will say that this is due to social conditioning. There is undoubtedly some truth to that. But we have had a few decades now of challenge to the male dominance paradigm yet in everyday life it still plays out with men expected to take the lead.
Of course I could be wrong. I often am. If dancing and the night club scene is the only place where this happens then we have a limited arena where traditional gender values continue to play themselves out. And I point out that they play themselves out with the full permission and endorsement of the women in that venue. But there is other evidence for the persistence of these traditional values to take into account. However the blog is long right now and so I discuss this other evidence in my next entry. Until then.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Now I have to be brutally honest with myself. When it comes to this partner type of dancing, where it is not freestyle, then I am not that great at it. I am getting better. But I am not nearly as good as I would like to be. Part of it is my ignorance of how you are suppose to do things. But I gain more knowledge with every dance. But part of it is my lack of skill in leading the dances. Do not know if that will change any time soon.
Anyone who does country or swing dances knows that this is one of the last areas where men are unashamedly expected to take the lead. Like any good academic I have learned about the patriarchal nature of our society and do not want to be one of those guys that pushes women around. You know. The bad guys. But a lot of taking the lead in dance is just that. More than one woman has complained that I do not push hard enough with my movements and they do not know what to do. A good male dancer has a firm enough "lead" that his female partner knows what he wants and can execute it.
I am working on being firmer with my lead but I know this will take a little time with me. The idea of using my strength to guide a women into doing something can feel like I am forcing a women. And I do not want to do that do I. I mean all of the feminist have talked to me in my head about the horrors of male dominance. Hey. I can blame the feminist for being a bad dancer. Heaven help me if I take blame for myself for not being as good of a dancer as I would like.
If it was just the dancing then that would be one thing. However, I have made other observations while attending the dance classes. You see these classes happen at a night club. And it seems that the guys who are most aggressive in pursuing dance partners are the ones who seem to have none of the soul searching I have about pushing women around on the dance floor. They have no problem with the lead on or off the dance floor. They also seem to be the ones that the females get exited about when they are approached by them whether it is for dancing or just basic social interaction.
Is it possible that dancing is a metaphor for male/female relationships? Despite all of the lessons we have learned lately about egalitarian male/female relationships that men taking a lead is a natural process. Sociologists will say that this is due to social conditioning. There is undoubtedly some truth to that. But we have had a few decades now of challenge to the male dominance paradigm yet in everyday life it still plays out with men expected to take the lead.
Of course I could be wrong. I often am. If dancing and the night club scene is the only place where this happens then we have a limited arena where traditional gender values continue to play themselves out. And I point out that they play themselves out with the full permission and endorsement of the women in that venue. But there is other evidence for the persistence of these traditional values to take into account. However the blog is long right now and so I discuss this other evidence in my next entry. Until then.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, September 4, 2011
Money is not everything
Ever play the game - If I had a million dollars I would____. Unless you are already a millionaire of course you have played this game. Don't we all think about what if we had a big pot of money. We could insure financial security of our families or support a favorite religious or political cause or even just buy some new fancy toys. Yeah, It is kind of fun to fantasy about having a lot of money.
But do you know what Nevin Shapiro decided to do with his riches? He decided to spread his cash to University of Miami football players. His "support" of the team allowed him to pal around with the players and coaches. Imagine a 40ish year old man throwing money around on cars, prostitutes and even an abortion so that he can hang out with 18 and 19 year olds. The word pathetic comes to mind.
Nothing wrong with supporting one's alma mater. As a college professor I like to see more support for the school I work at. But to do it to impressive athletes is pretty sad. The Miami players are not smarter, or more moral, or more charismatic than other college students. Their physical prowess may warrant their receiving scholarships but not adoration of supposedly mature adults.
This merely indicates that merely because individuals have money does not mean that they are better individuals than others. In fact Shapiro made his money on a Ponzi scheme which reinforces my already low level of respect for him. Wealth does not make a person better. If that person is immature without money then chances are that he or she will be just as immature with money. In fact with money the person can be worse since he or she will have resources to indulge in their immaturity.
Why is this important. We are a society that holds those with wealth in high esteem. Ever watch the Millionaire Matchmaker. All of these beautiful women throwing themselves at men who are able to get their attention because of their wealth. The message is that the way for a man to attract the opposite sex is to be rich. Not to be nice. Not to be smart. Not to be mature. It is not the Nice Guy Matchmaker or Intelligent Guy Matchmaker or Mature Guy Matchmaker. It is the Millionaire Matchmaker. I guess Shapiro can be a featured guy on this show after he gets out of jail.
My point is not to attack the show. The show is merely reflecting the values of the larger society. My point is that those values do not serve us well. There is nothing wrong with making money. But we do not have to place those who are wealthy on pedestals. In fact we would do well to remember that many of them are losers like Shapiro. Then we may be able to move ahead in a world where all people have equal value, regardless of their bank account, and are judged on their own moral and intellectual merits instead of on their wealth.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
But do you know what Nevin Shapiro decided to do with his riches? He decided to spread his cash to University of Miami football players. His "support" of the team allowed him to pal around with the players and coaches. Imagine a 40ish year old man throwing money around on cars, prostitutes and even an abortion so that he can hang out with 18 and 19 year olds. The word pathetic comes to mind.
Nothing wrong with supporting one's alma mater. As a college professor I like to see more support for the school I work at. But to do it to impressive athletes is pretty sad. The Miami players are not smarter, or more moral, or more charismatic than other college students. Their physical prowess may warrant their receiving scholarships but not adoration of supposedly mature adults.
This merely indicates that merely because individuals have money does not mean that they are better individuals than others. In fact Shapiro made his money on a Ponzi scheme which reinforces my already low level of respect for him. Wealth does not make a person better. If that person is immature without money then chances are that he or she will be just as immature with money. In fact with money the person can be worse since he or she will have resources to indulge in their immaturity.
Why is this important. We are a society that holds those with wealth in high esteem. Ever watch the Millionaire Matchmaker. All of these beautiful women throwing themselves at men who are able to get their attention because of their wealth. The message is that the way for a man to attract the opposite sex is to be rich. Not to be nice. Not to be smart. Not to be mature. It is not the Nice Guy Matchmaker or Intelligent Guy Matchmaker or Mature Guy Matchmaker. It is the Millionaire Matchmaker. I guess Shapiro can be a featured guy on this show after he gets out of jail.
My point is not to attack the show. The show is merely reflecting the values of the larger society. My point is that those values do not serve us well. There is nothing wrong with making money. But we do not have to place those who are wealthy on pedestals. In fact we would do well to remember that many of them are losers like Shapiro. Then we may be able to move ahead in a world where all people have equal value, regardless of their bank account, and are judged on their own moral and intellectual merits instead of on their wealth.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)