been awaaaaaaaaay

Back!
With meme from the fabulous AV ... thanks very muchly.

My Favourite Things

Things I'd like to do before I die:
1. Travel overseas
2. Write a book
3. Go into space!

Things I cannot do:
1. Iceskate
2. Rollerblade or rollerskate
3. Skateboard (there is a theme, isn't there!)

Things I can do:
1. Pretty much all ballsports and athletics
2. Draw (hehe)
3. Take good photos :)

Things that would attract me to my significant other:
1. Friendship
2. Likemindedness
3. Sense of humour

Things I like to say:
1. Sweet!
2. Mooooo
3. Meh *shrug*

Books I like best:
1. To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
2. Watership Down, Richard Adams
3. Magician, Raymond E. Feist

Movies I like to see:
1. Aliens
2. Amelie
3. Lord of the Rings Trilogy

ooh, tagged!

The Atheist Mama has tagged me! Woohoo, thanks mate! A book meme. I am a big reader actually, I go a little mad without at least one hanging around.

A book that changed my life: This one is hard. Um, The Sacred Balance (David Suzuki), The Beauty Myth (Naomi Wolf), Emily of New Moon (L. M. Montgomery) ... I could go on, but I'll spare you.

A book I’ve read more than once: Everything in my library, hehe. I have read Magician - and Daughter of the Empire, come to think of it - by Raymond E. Feist over and over.

A book I would take with me if I were stuck on a desert island: a reeeeeaaaally long one ... hehe, maybe the Encyclopedia Britannica? I love To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee), so maybe that one.

A book that made me laugh: Good Omens by Terry Pratchet. It's a laugh a minute :)

A book that made me cry: Watership Down (Richard Adams). It's such a beautiful story, love it.

A book that I wish had been written: I was supposed to be a great novelist according to my English teachers, so the one I could've written, hehe ...

A book that I wish had never been written: Hm. Atheist Mama had a point about the Bible ... though there are some interesting bits in it. It makes a rollicking tale!

A book I’ve been meaning to read: Oooh, so many of them. Marley & Me: Life and Love With the World's Worst Dog (John Grogan) looks entertaining - maybe that one first.

I’m currently reading: Penguin Classics. Just making my way through Jane Austen's assorted works (again), then maybe some Dickens or something.

Blogs I’m tagging:

evil bender
bruce's rave and rant
five public opinions
homesick home

on compassion

I had an interesting experience today, one that highlighted an area of my own personal development that I want to work on. I like to think I am empathetic and try to understand the feelings of others, but today I felt more challenged in that department.

A girl was ahead of me in the line for the bus. She was talking to the bus driver, and I noticed her struggling with a large pet carrier. Inside were two cute, medium sized cats. The girl was young, no more than 17 or 18. She and the bus driver finished their conversation and she disembarked. She was not allowed on the bus with her cats. As I realised this, I felt bad for her. I could understand how frustrating this must be. To have to catch the bus with your pets, alone, is hard enough, but then to be denied access to the public transport that you can afford (she would have been a student), is such a tough break. She sat down on the bench near the bus in tears. It really broke my heart.

The thing is, one part of me was saying, "Go and comfort her, ask her what's wrong and see if you can help."
The other part was saying, "You have to catch your bus. You feel bad for her, but there's nothing you can do."

It's comforting that my first thought was to want to help, to provide comfort. The troubling thing is that I went with my second instinct - I got on the bus. But even accepting that I made a decision based on my need, I thought about her all day. What happened to her and the cats? Did she get to where she needed to go? Could I have helped? What difference might I have made just by indicating my empathy?

It was a great opportunity for me to show compassion - but I shrank from it.

This quote from Buddhanet:

Just as wisdom covers the intellectual or comprehending side of our nature, compassion covers the emotional or feeling side of our nature. Like wisdom, compassion is a uniquely human quality. Compassion is made up of two words, 'co' meaning together and 'passion' meaning a strong feeling. And this is what compassion is. When we see someone in distress and we feel their pain as if it were our own, and strive to eliminate or lessen their pain, then this is compassion. So all the best in human beings, all the Buddha-like qualities like sharing, readiness to give comfort, sympathy, concern and caring - all are manifestations of compassion. You will notice also that in the compassionate person, care and love towards others has its origins in care and love for oneself.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda07.htm for you to read the rest of the Q&A on Compassion and Wisdom. I find a lot that I like about the philosophy in Buddhism - it seems to have much of the Humanist perspective about it and I feel it is worth investigating. What think you?

just one more thing ...

Here's an interesting article about marriage (I know, I promised I would shut up about it, but here I go again!) on Alternet, in an article by G. Pascal Zachary:

There are unquestionably practical benefits to marrying. That's why I'm in favor of gay marriage as a legal matter. But in favoring a more liberal criteria for marriage, I worry that we lose sight of the wider and weirder problem of permitting government to validate our most personal social partnerships.

Too true.

All these changes highlighted the essential arbitrariness of marriage, undermining fatally the claims that romantic partnerships must be endorsed by God in order to qualify as moral or legal. The government accepted that marriage was purely civil and subject to the same rules of procedure as any other. Of course, the implications of this principle have delivered us to our present conundrum. If we do not exclude gays from adoption, or employment in a police force or attendance at Giants games, then we cannot exclude them from marriage either.

Exactly! Gay partnerships are entitled to legal marriage - I haven't heard a decent argument why they should not be, in fact. I understand Zachary's point - why the need for validation through the civil legal system? But fact is it is still important to some, hetero or homosexual, to have pledged their commitment in a public forum, while others have more practical reasons for doing so (to help keep a partner in the country, to get access to some US healthcare - Aussies don't really have that issue,and it staggers me that Americans do). So, it should be there for those who want it. I would not be against banning the practise of marriage altogether, just because I happen to believe there are equally sound alternatives to it. The beauty, of this, is choice! Evilbender wrote a great summary of his thoughts about marriage, here.

If folks have a religious reason for their nuptials, that's certainly fair enough, if it is part of their belief system. As a non-religious type I have no need for this. Also, many rituals take place and do not necessarily contain legalities (eg. christenings and naming days, funerals, etc) - they indicate the separation of Church and State. The religious ceremony of marriage is between the couple, as two individuals in love, and their God (sanctifying their relationship). It's the government 'validation' certainly that makes me wonder - why does one need it? Any two people can stand up in front of their friends and family (or just each other) and declare their commitment, minus signing a marriage certificate and/or minus a religious ceremony.

political compass

This is a neat little test, give it a go. I was a (far) Left-leaning Libertarian. Or something.

the visitor who made up my mind - part 2

After making my last post, it really got me thinking. That initial crossing of swords with Mum's friend made it really clear I had to figure out what I did and didn't find acceptable in a partnership - and hey, these days most marriages we know are pretty much equal in terms of the man and woman having rights and not being afraid to assert them. Marriage, to my friends, has been either mainly a religious commitment, or one they made because they wanted the legal representation a marriage would entail through the state (or both). These are, of course, really good reasons for wanting to be married if it suits you - the most important reason, however, being you love the person and can see them as a life-partner.

Regarding my last post Arthur, a commenter,had a great point - that joint bank accounts also serve their purpose in terms of both equality and ease and aren't just related to independence (absolutely true). I guess I just used it as somewhat of a metaphor for my ideals of equality in relationships. I fully support joint bank accounts for those who want them, hehe. Also, on re-reading, I didn't actually mean to insinuate that, should a woman or man be looking for traditional married roles, that they were somehow wrong, or letting themselves down, or not aiming higher in terms of their independence. I sited those things as important to me - I would not be happy in a 'tradtional' married role (mother as caretaker, housewife; husband as breadwinner and head of family). It conflicts with my ideals. Being free to make that choice is so important, I can barely imagine how it would have been 50 years ago.

Everyone has their own experience with marriage and that will inform their decisions in life. I saw fantastic, equal partnerships as well as ones which reflected a very subordinate role for the woman, and even ones in which the man had no access to the children on an emotional level as it was considered 'the mother's job' to give them that support. Awareness that it wasn't marriage that made the difference between being happy and unhappy, it was being compatible in your ideals that made the happy partnership, made it a lot easier to find the person for me - and I ultimately choose a guy who had those ideals also.

The idea not to marry, for us, is to do with traditional ideas related to marriage. The patriarchal and crazily exorbitant focus on 'weddings', the fact that the State has to get involved in order to 'legalise' our partnership (as though it wasn't real until the papers were signed), the odd societal pressure to do everything 'in the right order' (engagement, marriage, children). The fact that there are still loving gay partnerships who want to take the step of marriage in a legal sense, and are unable to do so, doesn't make much sense to me and I wouldn't support a current system which denies that.

Furthermore, I do support each and every individual's right to married, defacto and single life. It seems that singles get a bit of a raw deal too these days (the constant cry of 'so have you found someone?' or 'you'd think by 35 she'd be married' or even the dreaded, 'I can set you up with a great guy from the office!' seem to intimate singles have something missing from their lives, or must be horribly lonely and sad without a long-term partner - often not the case). 'Each to their own!!' I cry, and lest this blog be thought of as the-girl-who-only-talks-about-marriage, that will be all I have to say on the subject for now. The end.

the visitor who made up my mind

Righto, so I guess it all started when I was around 18. Mum had a visitor, an old friend who happened to be the ex-wife of my Uncle. She was just starting divorce proceedings with what I assume to be her second husband, and Mum was keen to support her. I had never met this lady before, and she seemed perfectly nice of course, until we got to men. Well, husbands actually.

Her attitude there probably spoke of disappointments, maybe some bitterness, a sense of loss. Fair enough, of course. It's sad when relationships break up (heck, my parents had separated and my father died of cancer - achingly - before Mum could institute divorce proceedings). I knew about separation, sadness, the struggle of two adults in a relationship. Kids may be inexperienced to adult notions but are sure as heck observant.

So what about that conversation elevated my feminism? Lets start with money! As Mum and I talked to her about her relationship, she began to instill within me 'what happens' when you get married. You lose your independence, you do the things your husband needs you to do, you have joint finances. At this point, I had asserted that should I be in a relationship, we would have our own separate bank accounts and manage them accordingly. To which she looked on me with condescention and pity to say: 'Oh no, that's not how relationships work, Honey, you will have a joint bank account'. Not in an 'it makes it easier' way, but in a 'you become one person so you have no "my own"' way. Ok, that one got my back up a little. The conversation that followed, and any argument that I put up in favour of independent thought or action for the woman, was curtailed with a knowing, superior shake of the head and a 'you'll learn, when you are old enough you'll see how it goes'.

This horrified me. That the two 'individuals' could not exist within the marriage? That we really actually became one person with the same ideas and thoughts and actions? What if I didn't agree with my husband .. ? I understood that this was just one woman's experience - but come to think of it, it seemed to be every woman I knew at that time's experience too! One I had already decided I didn't want for myself.

Funny how that afternoon sticks in my mind. I think it began to galvanise me against ever wanting to feel subordinate, to feel less than equal and less than an independent individual, all because of a relationship. My first long term (still current) relationship has proven that her definitions of 'how it is' in a relationship were far from accurate - for this day and age. It doesn't have to be that way and there is a sense of naivety on her part (something she thought I possessed at 18) about the lack of control she had in taking control of her own life within marriage: ideas, thoughts and actions. I have a wonderful life partner, who likewise is all-for commitment, but we are both uninterested in marriage as an institution. We have what we need and while we of course support all our married and unmarried friends, it's having the choice to do our own thing that is important.

And, to this day, there is no joint bank account.