I gotta be honest here. No matter how many times you tell me that affirmative action and quotas in hiring and school admissions are a good idea, I will never agree. “But aren’t you for equality?” Of course I am. “Don’t you want things to be fair?” Well, yeah, duh. But the only way hiring — or anything else, for that matter — will ever be completely equitable is for people to give no regard whatsoever to race or sex and focus solely on the credentials of the applicant.

Before we go further into this topic, let’s take care of the elephant in the room. I am a 28-year-old, well-educated, white woman from a middle-class background. I grew up in a two-parent home in a relatively safe, rural community, and atttended small schools where I received a lot of personal attention. In short, I’ve had a lot of advantages.

Quota-based acceptance rates are often geared toward supporting those who haven’t had the same advantages I have, but this isn’t about keeping down the other guy. The central reason is that I don’t think they actually do anything positive for the other guy — or for me, or for anyone at all. In fact, I think they make things worse. Here’s why.

Scenario:

Sue is a hiring manager. She’s narrowed her applications to two candidates for the open position. Applicant A, male, 34, is supremely well-qualified for the position, interviewed well, and is available to start immediately. Applicant B, female, 29, is less qualified with less experience, but also interviewed well and is available to start immediately. Sue reviews her notes carefully, and makes her decision. She wants to hire Applicant A, and the position’s manager and subordinates all agree that he’s the best choice. But when Sue presents her proposal and the offer package to her supervisor for approval, her recommendation is quashed because of a new hiring mandate geared toward evening the gender ratio in the workplace by hiring more women, and the numbers are way off. In other words, no way can they hire a new man. Applicant B gets the job.

Commentary:

This is the essential problem with quota-based hiring: It’s just as discriminatory as its non-quota-based counterpart. The man doesn’t get the job because he’s a man. How is that any different from someone not getting a job because they’re female or black or from a bad neighborhood? If you ask me, it’s the same thing.

Something you’ll here us say on this blog a lot is, “Who says it’s a man’s world?” Women have been increasingly present in the workplace and in their own entrepreneurial ventures over the last several decades, and I would hate to think that it’s because some quota forced companies to hire unqualified people simply to meet some arbitrary requirement. How is that fair? Getting a job because you happened to be more fill-in-random-physical-or-geographical-characteristic-here than the other applicants despite the fact that you’re less qualified is not a good thing.

Take a look at our scenario. Who’s going to feel good about this hiring decision? Well, Sue sure isn’t. She knows that the less qualified applicant got the position, and she’s probably going to feel resentful toward her supervisor for making her offer the job to the wrong person, and she’s also going to resent the new employee for making her feel impotent in her job as hiring manager. The person supervising the new hire isn’t going to feel good about it because he knows the wrong person got the job, too, and that his new employee isn’t as well qualified as the one he wanted and thought he would get. The subordinates of the new hire, who were involved in the interview process and are familiar with the appplicants’ backgrounds, aren’t going to feel good about it because they got the less well-qualified supervisor.

And Applicant B, who just got the job, probably isn’t going to feel too great about it either, not when she gets to work and finds that her boss and the people who answer to her are standoffish and sullen. She may not know why, but if she finds out that they’re mad a less qualified position got the job, that will do little for her confidence in the position or her relationships with her coworkers. If she doesn’t find out, she may feel that she’s being treated that way because she’s a woman (and technically, she’ll be right).

A Better Solution:

I’m all for diversity in the workplace, but it needs to be natural diversity, not the charade of forced quotas. How does that happen? Diversity-focused recruitment efforts. Companies need to attend career fairs, networking events, and university employment events in a variety of geographical and demographic areas. Need a more international workforce? Don’t just hire the first guy from China who applies. Target international career fairs and visit college campuses with a strong international component. Need more women? Try career fairs at women’s colleges, and advertise your openings with professional organizations for women. The more diverse your applicant pool, the more your raise your changes of having a top applicant who will add a unique background and social experience to your organization.

We also need to remember that diversity is more than just sex and skin color. Diversity can also be about religious beliefs, cultural upbringing, geographical origin, political affiliations, and anything else you can think of that makes people who they are. Focusing on the two most superficial elements of diversity is narrowminded and counterproductive.

The key to a truly equitable diverse workplace is not just getting the numbers right. It’s creating a corporate culture that embraces excellence in whatever form it comes, and striving to open opportunities to a wide group of people. If you’re hiring for five positions and the top applicant in each position happens to be a middle-aged white guy, hire five middle-aged white guys. But if all of your recruiting activities are happening in Portland, Oregon, and that happens, you don’t get to complain about the lack of diversity in your organization.

What do you think? Are quota-based hiring methods critical to workplace diversity? Leave a comment.

NB: A version of this post originally appeared on the now-defunct BizChicksRule.com in January 2008. The editor of the business channel where the site was housed provided the scenario above as a prompt for all of the bloggers in the section. This was my response.

Last night I watched Gone With the Wind for what I later realized was the first time in at least six and a half years. I discerned this fact while trying to analyze why I bawled through virtually the whole thing. For a movie I’ve seen at least a dozen times, that struck me as a strange reaction…until I realized that I hadn’t seen it since (a) my brother died and (b) I got married. Why would these two events, which happened more than six and nearly five years ago, respectively, have sparked such a response? Well, I’ll tell you.

Why being married reduced me to a quivering ball of sobs throughout Gone With the Wind

Although I’ve read GWTW probably 10 times or more and seen the film even more than than, I never truly appreciated the heartbreaking dynamic of Rhett and Scarlett’s relationship. They were each so afraid of being hurt by the other that they never really allowed themselves to love fully — and thus hurt one another over and over again. The two parts that really got me were when Scarlett told him she didn’t want to have any more children (and, thus, never to have sex with her husband again, as she made abundantly clear immediately after that annoucement) and the morning after he sweeps her up the stairs and ravages her.

In the first, she’s being a petulant child. But the moment that wrenched something deep inside me was just after Rhett regained his composure following that statement. He told her he’d go elsewhere to meet his needs, sloshed some whiskey into a glass, and flung the tumbler at a life-size portrait of Scarlett after taking only a sip, clearly beside himself. And she simply didn’t care. I’m not sure which was harder to watch: her lack of real reaction to his obvious pain, or the extent to which that proclamation, that the woman he loved no longer wanted to make love to him, shook him to his core. I burst into tears.

In the second, Scarlett awakes in the best mood we’ve seen her in, reveling in the memory of the passionate night that preceded. She’s positively joyous, and is delighted to see Rhett when he approaches her bed after Mammy takes away the breakfast tray. Her adoration reads clearly on her face, but he, presumably expecting the venom he’s become accustomed to receiving, remains stoic and announces that he’s leaving and taking their daughter with him. Rather than declare her love for him, Scarlett, whose face has fallen, decides to put up a wall and acts like she doesn’t care. It’s clear, though, how much Rhett’s departure devastated her when he returns and her face lights up. “Mammy said you’d come back,” she tells him. But she is again devastated when he announces that he’s returned only to drop off their daughter and will be leaving again immediately. That, compounded with her tumbling down the majestic stairs only moments later, left me sobbing for the duration of the movie.

Following Scarlett’s accident, Rhett is bereft with guilt and regret. He longs for Scarlett to call him to her bedside so he can apologize and make things right, but she never does because she fears he won’t come — and he won’t go without her calling for him because he feels she must hate him and would reject him yet again. This was, for me, the ultimate tragedy of the story. Two people, desperately in love with one another, lock themselves into a lifetime of hurt because they’re too afraid of being hurt by the other to reach out for the happiness they could both have. It isn’t until the end of the film that Scarlett finally realizes what a fool she has been, but by that time she has hurt Rhett so deeply that he can’t even begin to forgive her, and leaves. As he disappears into the fog despite her pleas, she staggers to the monumental staircase and collapses in tears.

Watching this whole scenario unfold, I found myself wondering, Have I ever pushed my husband away like that for fear of his rejecting or disappointing me? Has he ever done the same? I think that self-protective, but ultimately self-destructive, action happens in most relationships to some extent. And like Scarlett and Rhett, those doing it don’t truly realize the affect they’re having on their spouse, themselves, and the marriage. The thought that I could have ever done that to someone I love, or that I may in the future, was so utterly awful, regretful, and earth shattering that I couldn’t contain myself. And the further thought that people around me every day are doing this foolish, foolish thing instead of simply embracing the one they love made me even more emotional.

How personal loss dramatically changed my reaction to a film I’ve seen over and over

Once the danger has passed and Scarlett is on the road to recovery, their young daughter dies in a horseback riding accident. (Sorry if I’m ruining this for anyone, but seriously, the movie is 70 years old. Get with the program.) Rather than cling to one another in their grief, they break apart even further. Mammy recounts the fight that ensued, wherein Scarlett called him a murderer and demanded that Rhett give her back her baby “what you killed.” That was emotional enough, but the part that got me, that left me in near hysterics for a good 45 minutes after the film ended, was what happened next. Rhett locked himself in the nursery with Bonnie’s body, refusing to allow the funeral to take place. His reason? He wouldn’t let anyone bury his child under the ground because she was so afraid of the dark.

Despite my familiarity with both the text and the screen versions of the story, I had forgotten that line. If I’m being honest, I think I may have blocked it out. Hearing it last night flashed me back to an afternoon six years and four months ago as I sat beside my father on the couch in the living room of the house where I grew up. He was holding a small flashlight in one hand a two AA batteries in the other, and he looked absolutely lost. My brother’s body was to be buried the next day, and the funeral home had informed us earlier that morning that although we could certainly put whatever we wanted in the casket, we couldn’t include any batteries because they would eventually release their acid into the soil.

Hours later, my father deteriorated into a much smaller person than I have ever seen him, before or since. His more than six-foot frame looked whisper-thin as he slid the batteries out of the flashlight body into his calloused palm. “Without the batteries,” he rasped, voice breaking, “how will he be able to see? He’ll be all alone in the dark.” He nearly fell to the floor as his body convulsed with grief. I felt helpless, and couldn’t shake the thought not of the dark, but of the eventual breakdown of the casket that held my brother’s body, the sound of the dirt first trickling and then collapsing onto what remained of him as it all turned back into dust. Because if that wasn’t inevitable, then batteries wouldn’t matter — they’d be contained by the satin and wood with no way to get out into the ground.

Although it has faded over time, made its appearance less frequent, that image of my father broken on the couch has never truly left me. It returned to my mind with such force last night that it knocked the wind out of me. When I heard that line about Bonnie being afraid of the dark and then saw Rhett Butler crouching beside his daughter’s lifeless body in the nursery, silhouetted in the candlelight, my visceral response was so strong that I nearly vomited. Previously, I’d had no point of reference. Now, it’s all too personal. I cried just as hard last night as I did on learning of my brother’s death, and I cry again now as I type this, so hard I can barely see the screen.

__

I’m not sure I’ll ever watch Gone With the Wind again, nor pick the volume off my shelf. I genuinely don’t know if I will be able to handle it. But I’m glad I watched it last night, glad I let myself cry and process rather than what Scarlett was so famous for: putting it off until tomorrow and burying difficult and unpleasant emotions. That doesn’t mean, though, that I’d ever want to go through it again.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King, Inkthinker

Dear Rude Boy:

If you hadn’t crashed into my sister-in-law and me multiple times in the wave pool this weekend, I wouldn’t have said anything. I know what it’s like to splash around and have fun with your friends, and sometimes you get distracted and bump into someone. I get that. But when you do it repeatedly despite the fact that we’ve been consciously moving away from you, and then I see you kick a little girl in the head while you’re trying to drown your pal, it’s not inappropriate for me to do what I did.

As I’m sure you remember, the next time you came splashing toward me with no regard for the people around you, I put my hand on your back and straightened my arm to keep you from knocking me over (again). As I’m sure you’ll also remember that my exact words to you when you turned around, aghast, were, “You guys need to be more aware of your surroundings, okay? You’ve crashed into us multiple times.” 

Now, what I expected you to do after that happened was to say, “Oh, sorry,” and move somewhere in the pool where there were less people. Imagine my surprise when you shot me a look before moving closer to your friend and looking pointedly at me while acting like you were talking to him and snarled, “How about if people don’t like it they move the hell out of the way.” 

Here’s the thing, kiddo: We did move out of the way — more than once. And you and your pals were so self-involved that you basically terrorized the entire rear half of the pool for more than an hour.

How would you have felt if someone had continually knocked your girlfriend (you know, the too-young-for-you, scantily clad girl you were hanging on and salivating over when you weren’t crashing into other swimmers?) down in the pool and then, when she asked him politely to stop, he not only didn’t apologize but then made snarky comments and glared at her? I’m guessing a fight would likely have ensued, with you as the aggressor.

I get the impression that you were trying to impress your pals with your devil-may-care, no-one-tells-me-what-to-do attitude and show them how manly you are, but in actuality, you really just acted like a petulant 4-year-old who, frankly, needed a time out and was way overdue for a spanking. Not cool, young man, not cool at all.

I’m not sure what you were so afraid of, or why it was so completely off the table for you to simply acknowledge what the problem was and stop doing it, but this style of handling conflict does not bode well for your future relationship, or for your girlfriend. If you’re so concerned about what your homies or crew or whatever the word is these days think about you that you completely overlook basic manners and decency, I shudder to think how you’d behave if there were some kind of serious conflict, or perhaps if your girlfriend disagreed with you. 

Was I threatening your masculinity by asking you not to run into me repeatedly in a large body of water? Did I emasculate you by asserting my right not to be assaulted by inconsiderate strange males in public places? Were you concerned that my request that you respect my personal space would cause a lightbulb to go on in your girlfriend’s head, leading to her ultimately standing up to you when you pull your undoubtedly common immature crap?

Man up, little boy. Real men don’t need to behave like big weenies in order to feel manly. They don’t avoid admitting it when they screw up or to treating women with respect for fear of losing street cred. And they don’t hang out with people who would consider taking responsibility, being polite, and demonstrating respect as weaknesses.

I hope you seriously consider everything I’ve said. It will save you a lot of trouble in the future. Honestly. Give it a shot: Grow up.

Oh, and by the way, if you touch me again, I’ll have you thrown out of the park.

Love,

Kristen 

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King, Inkthinker

(photo credit: Marcelo Terraza)

I’ve been on a self-improvement kick of late and have been taking a hard look at myself and my life. Something that keeps coming back to me are excellent pieces of advice I’ve received over the years.

• “Just because someone has a lesson to learn doesn’t mean you have to teach it to him.”
• “Do what needs to be done when it needs to be done the way it needs to be done whether you feel like doing it or not.”
• “When you’re wrong, admit it. When you’re right, shut up.”
• “Never stop being your husband’s girlfriend or wife’s boyfriend.”

Particularly as I’ve been trying to improve my marriage to a wonderful man whom I adore by making changes to myself, I’ve realized that these brilliant recommendations apply in so many areas. How could you put them to use?

“Just because someone has a lesson to learn doesn’t mean you have to teach it to him.”

Who Said It: My mother-in-law (DH’s mom)

What It Means: Let’s face it: Some people are just jerks, and there’s nothing you can do about it. But most of the time, folks aren’t trying to be mean, annoying, inconsiderate, etc. When they do the things that drive you nuts or make you cringe, they’re just oblivious to the fact that their actions are wrong, inappropriate, or otherwise disquieting. While it sure would be nice to believe that your saying something about it would solve the problem, chances are that ain’t happening. So unless you’re in imminent danger, let it go.

Where You Can Use It: Everywhere. Whether it’s the driver who cut you off in traffic or the spouse who never manages to get his/her clothes into the hamper, is it really worth ruining your day? Some things just aren’t that important. Clearly if that guy is driving so fast he has somewhere very important to be. And clearly you care more about the little details of laundry aim than your partner does — so get out of the way and pick the clothes up yourself.

Why It’s Hard to Do Sometimes: I believe that we were created in God’s image (Gen 1:26,27), and the Bible tells us that He is a lover of justice (Ps 37:28) who feels hurt in his heart when he sees bad things happening in the Earth (Gen 6:5,6). So if we were made to mirror his qualities, it’s only logical that we would also feel hurt and even indignation when we see wrongs being committed around us, however minor. The big difference is that where God can see what’s in people’s hearts, we can’t — so it’s not up to us to make decisions about other people’s intentions or “teach them a lesson” when we don’t like something they’ve done. (This, of course, does not apply to things that are dangerous or illegal, in which case we have a moral obligation to speak up, but that still doesn’t mean we have to do the teaching. We can stop at the calling-the-police. It also doesn’t apply to providing your children with appropriate loving discipline and guidance. But you knew that already.)

“Do what needs to be done when it needs to be done the way it needs to be done whether you feel like doing it or not.”

Who Said It: My mom

What It Means: Your mood at any given moment does not negate your responsibilities and obligations. Whether you meet those responsibilities and obligations happily or grumpily is irrelevant so long as you meet them. Being tired, frustrated, sad, tired, whatever, does not constitute an excuse for bailing out on your life. So suck it up and take care of business.

Where You Can Use It: At home and at work. So what if you slept poorly last night? Your employer has to pay you either way, and it’s your obligation to do a good job because that’s what you were hired for. So what if you and the hubby had an argument about something? It’s still your obligation to make dinner, clean up, do laundry, take care of the kids, etc. Feelings are feelings, not Get Out of Jail Free cards. Don’t treat them as such. Be mad, be sad, be tired all you want — but do what you’re supposed to do.

Why It’s Hard to Do Sometimes: When we’re constantly bombarded with messages in the media, in popular culture, and from so-called experts telling us that we “deserve” some “me time” or “a break” or “more from life” or “free money” or any number of other things that just sound so nice,  it’s easy to get caught up in a me-centric view of life that overlooks the importance and value of our responsibilities to others. That includes our responsibilities to our families, our communities, and our employers. Newsflash: Regardless of the type of relationship you’re in, it’s not about “me” — it’s about the other person/people and “we.” I don’t care if you think it would be easier to throw that candy bar wrapper out the window while you’re driving; stick it in your pocket until you find a trash can. I don’t care if you had a bad day at work; put on your big girl panties and be a pleasant, decent person when you get home. Clean your house even if it doesn’t thrill you. Make a nutritious dinner for your family even if you’re not in a good mood. Get over the mistaken notion that everything in your life must be perfect at all times or you get to check out. It doesn’t work that way.

“When you’re wrong, admit it. When you’re right, shut up.”

Who Said It: Blog reader ClumberKim in response to the post Are You the Kind of Spouse You’d Like to Be Married To?

What It Means: The only thing more annoying than a person who’s right all the time is a person who’s right all the time and wants to make sure you know it. In a very close second is the person who refuses to ever admit when he’s wrong. The reason these people are so obnoxious is that it’s all about them and never about the solution or making peace. (Note: I have been one of these people and am currently breaking out of that pattern.) When you screw up, admit it and move on. When you’re right about something, don’t lord it over the person who was wrong.

Where You Can Use It: At home, at work, and in public. No one likes admitting that he’s wrong or that he made a mistake, but it’s even harder and more uncomfortable when the person he has to admit it to is smug and condescending. Whether your coworker made an oversight that you caught or your spouse made a poor judgment call about something, the last thing he or she needs is to feel like even more of a dolt when you rub his or her face in it. Just say, “Okay,” and move on. And if you’re the one who’s caught in a gaffe, fight the instinct to be defensive, accept the correction, and keep going forward. This also goes for inadvertently bumping into a stranger, causing or being victim of a fender bender, or giving or receiving incorrect change. See a resolution, not restitution or revenge.

A note on infidelity in marriage: I believe that adultery is the only scripturally acceptable reason for divorce (Matt 19:9, 5:32; see the post Biblical Divorce: What Does the Bible Really Say About Marriage and Divorce? for more on this topic). However, it is not a scriptural mandate for divorce. If your spouse strayed outside the marital relationship, but has stopped the affair and is genuinely contrite and committed never to do so again, it’s the innocent spouse’s perogative to continue the marriage or  seek a divorce. The reason this is relevant is that if the innocent spouse decides to forgive the adulterous one and remain married, he or she does not get to bring up the infidelity as a constant albatross around the mate’s neck. When you accept someone’s apology, you’re agreeing to put what happened in the past. Being right or being wrong  and previous mistakes are far less important than what both partners can do to strengthen the marriage in the present for the future. This applies to any mistakes your spouse may have made, but I think it’s worth noting that accepting the heartfelt apology of an unfaithful spouse is not license for the faithful spouse to use the error as a weapon for the duration of the relationship.

Why It’s Hard to Do Sometimes: I’m the first to admit that there’s a certain feeling of elation, gratification, and validation that comes with being right. Likewise, there’s a certain shame and embarrassment that accompanies being wrong. When we’re so caught up in those feelings within ourselves, it’s easy to forget about the feelings of the other person. But just as you don’t like it when other people pull the “Neener, neener, neener” card when you’re wrong or get petulant and angry when you’re right, they feel the same way about you. Don’t be a baby. Consider the feelings of others.

“Never stop being your husband’s girlfriend or wife’s boyfriend.”

Who Said It: Dr. Laura C. Schlessinger (a paraphrase)

What It Means: Back when you and your spouse were just dating, I’m willing to bet that you were sweet and charming and complimentary and well groomed/dressed and happy to compromise and put his/her feelings first pretty much all the time. That comes with the territory of trying to win someone over. But have you “let yourself go” since you snagged the officially, ring and all? That’s when people start to lose that lovin’ feeling — because they stop doing the things that made their partner fall in love with them in the first place. But what do you think would happen if you recreated those courting behaviors with your spouse? Think about it. Or better yet, try it. Dr. Laura also advises people to “Choose wisely. Treat kindly,” and that advice goes hand-in-hand with this tip.

Where You Can Use It: Your marriage. That one’s kind of obvious. But not just in the privacy of your own home, where you treat your spouse like the king or queen you married. Do it when you’re out in public, too, holding hands like twitterpated teenagers. Do it when you talk to your friends and family, building up your spouse by talking about his or her good qualities. Do it when you’re alone, too, as you think about all the wonderful things your spouse has done for you and what you can do for him or her.

Why It’s Hard to Do Sometimes: Although there are any number of reasons it’s difficult to be your spouse’s girl-/boyfriend throughout your marriage, I think it comes down to two main sources:

1. Cultural reinforcement of the idea of the wife as a ball and chain and the husband as the bumbling idiot or emotionally unavailable rake, both of whom control their wives and demand constant sexual satisfaction; and
2. Lack of good models to demonstrate the equal dignity and beauty of spouses who each fulfill their respective roles with love and respect, both in our own homes as we grow up and in society as a whole.

When it’s increasingly challenging to find families that haven’t been divided by divorce, often for reasons like “irreconcilable differences” (which I believe is a cop-out, incidentally), most people have no clue what a functional marriage looks like. And those who think they might have been so jaded by militant feminism (men are the enemy) and an entertainment industry (men are sex fiends and players) that paints men as womankind’s biggest oppressors that they wouldn’t know functional if it hit them over the head.

Newsflash: Flirting with your husband is a good thing, ladies. So is shaving your legs and wearing cute nighties to bed instead of letting yourself turn into the ogre under the bridge once you’ve snagged your man. These are not manipulations or burdens — they are fun and loving and girlfriend-y things to do. And a guy who already has a girlfriend (and one who shares great married sex with him any time he wants it at that) isn’t likely to seek one elsewhere. Just a thought.

The same goes for guys. Tell your wife she’s beautiful, take her on a date, hold her hand on the couch, and be her man. Surprise her with something little like a candybar or a flower or even just a heartfelt “I love you” and a kiss on the cheek. When we feel treasured and cherished by our husboyfriend, we’re not going anywhere, either, and we won’t be led astray by the compliments of the attractive guy in the next cubicle at work because we have all the man we need or want at home.

That’s some of the best advice I’ve ever received. What about you? What advice could you share? And how could these suggestions transform your life?

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King, Inkthinker

(photo credit)

My fifth anniversary is coming up in September, and I’ve been asking myself this question for the last few months: Would I like to be married to me? I’m ashamed to say that, with the exception of approximately the last six or eight weeks, the answer has been no.

I don’t mean to suggest that I’m downright evil, negligent, intentionally cruel, or unfaithful. Those things aren’t me. But unfortunately what I am or, what I hope I can say with a fair level of honesty, what I have been is extremely selfish and immature. Throughout our marriage, I have put myself first instead of my husband in my decision making and attitudes. I’m still married, so largely this has worked out okay, but it is decidedly not the way to be a good wife to your husband, and it certainly doesn’t endear you to him.

One way to look at it is that I lucked out in marrying a guy who loves me and is forgiving of my stupidity. And, my friends, I have indeed been stupid. Unfortunately, the other way to look at it is that my husband wasn’t quite so lucky. Here’s one example: I fight dirty. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have any clue where I picked up that habit, but I’m not going to name names. I will, however, tell you what I’ve been doing. Instead of pursuing making peace when there’s a disagreement, I’ve been pursuing being right. And one of the easiest ways to be right is to make the other person wrong.

This is all fine and good when the other person is just a complete troll, as was the case with one commenter back when I wrote for b5media. In response to my post Little Girls Who Dress Like Skanks Grow Up to Be Woman Who Dress Like Skanks, a reader who used the handle “Private_Freedom” remarked in part, “I think you are either an unattractive woman, or you just want to play mini dictator on how people should dress and/or behave. …You need psychiatric help. I dunno, maybe your mother never breast fed you, in which case your brain would be around 10-20% smaller than normal…” (see the whole comment). In that case, I had no qualms about putting that guy in his place. Nor did I have an issue with smacking down on an Inkthinker reader who personally attacked me when I said I wasn’t interested in publishing his work. But there’s a time and a place for that kind of response, and it’s not when you’re dealing with the person you’re supposed to love most in the world.

It’s driven me crazy the whole time we’ve been together that when we had some kind of difference of opinion, my husband seldom “fought back.” I recently realized that’s because it’s a complete waste of time because I’m a real jerk. When I don’t think I can win, I have a tendency to make other people feel stupid enough to give up on their viewpoint and acquiesce to mine. Believe me, this hasn’t been intentional. But now that I’ve recognized it, I cringe when I think back at some of the incredibly stupid fights we’ve had.

Something else that’s occurred to me is that most of the time, when he sees things one way and I see them another, the fact that he doesn’t immediately come over to my way of thinking after I voice my viewpoint does not constitute a “communication problem” or him “not listening to me”; it simply means that he doesn’t agree. It’s not something to beat to death, to get frustrated about. It’s something to compromise over or let go. And I’ve never really been one for letting things go, frankly, which is something I’m working on, and will probably continue to work on for a very long time. Possibly forever.

I think the basic takeaway in this self-revelation has been that if I don’t turn something into an argument, it doesn’t become one. And very few things in life are worth arguing about. Including the stuff that I used to (and am trying so hard to stop) nitpicking about constantly, like the way the towels are folded or the way the dishwasher is loaded. Seriously, if it gets done, who cares? Well, I did, but what a waste of energy to spend time stressing over something so meaningless, and to make my husband miserable over it.

Husbands are not children to be mommied or punished, nor are they daddies or white knights to swoop in and cater to their little princess’ whim. They are the people we wives have chosen to spend the rest of our lives with, whose needs we have committed to placing ahead of our own, and for whom we have promised to sacrifice and compromise and work hard. But I don’t see those things happening around me. Maybe that’s why I’ve been so screwed up. When half or more of marriages end in divorce today, promiscuity is the new black, and it’s all about me, me, me, I think it’s easy to lose sight of what marriage is for in the first place. It’s a lifelong committment to complete your partner — not to sit around and wait for him to complete you.

Love is not a feeling you have, but the conscious choices you make and actions you take every day regardless of how you feel. (I’ve paraphrased this from something I heard recently that really resonated with me.) It’s also about doing the right thing whether it feels good or not or regardless of whether you want to. Love is sacrifice for the good of another. And sacrificing for someone you love is an honor and a privilege, not a burden, and you should behave in such a way that gives the role — and your spouse — dignity.

Nobody’s perfect, but I think this realization may have made me somewhat more lovable. I know for sure it’s made my husband happier for me to consciously be his wife and to consciously love him in this way. But I see so many people like me, people who are pushy and selfish and domineering and who either don’t see it or don’t care, and I feel bad for their spouses. I feel bad for my husband for having a spouse like that for so long, one whom you might now reasonably call only a “recovering shrew.”I look forward to the day that part of me is a distant memory.

Where is it coming from, this resentment toward marriage and spouses? And would you want to be married to you?

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King, Inkthinker

(photo credit)

(www.meowbarkblog.com)

Birds-Animals-Nature photo

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(www.meowbarkblog.com) — Earlier this afternoon, US Airways flight 1549 was forced to land in the Hudson River allegedly because of a bird strike that debilitated the aircraft. As of this writing, all 150 passengers and 5 crew members had been safely recovered from the aircraft and transported to New York hospitals to be treated for various minor injuries and hypothermia.

A “bird strike” occurs when an aircraft or other vehicle collides with an airborne animal, and is common during takeoffs and landings. According to MSNBC live reports this afternoon, airports typically report regularly on bird activity near runways to cut down on the likelihood of accidents and injuries resulting from bird strikes.

For more on bird strikes, visit Bird Strike Committee USA and read the Wikipedia entry on bird strikes.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(www.sass-pants.com) — This UK atheism advertising campaign has got me thinking about atheism. (Mission accomplished, Richard Dawkins and Ariane Sherine.) The campaign slogan is “There’s probably no God. Not stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Perhaps I have had a misunderstanding rather than an understanding of atheism all this time, but I though it was denial in the existence of God, not an admission of the possibility that there could be no God. So I’m confused. What exactly is atheism?

Web addict that I am, my first stop was Google, where I searched “atheism,” followed by a quick hop over to Twitter, where I tweeted,

In this post, I’ll share what I found via through my Google search.

Common trends:

• There are two types of atheism: strong and weak.
• Disbelief / lack of belief in a God or gods should not be confused with belief that there is no God or gods.
• Atheism, agnosticism, and skepticism are distinctive belief systems.

From the organization American Atheists’ About page:

An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy. An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it. An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help lead to a life of fulfillment.

According to Wikipedia’s Atheism entry:

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of theism. It is also defined more broadly as an absence of belief in deities, or nontheism.

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism and naturalism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere; and some religions, such as Jainism and Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion. With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.

The guide to Atheism / Agnosticism at About.com had this to say:

The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point.

The “Definitions of the term ‘Atheism’” page at ReligiousTolerance.org reads:

Most of the North American public define an “Atheist” is a person who believes that no deity exists: neither a God, nor a Goddess, nor a pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. This definition is reflected in American dictionaries — not just because most publishers are Christian, but because it is the purpose of dictionaries to follow the public’s word usage. Some individuals who consider themselves Atheists mesh well with that definition. But they may be in the minority. Many, perhaps most, Atheists simply have no belief about deity. For them, Atheism is not disbelief in a deity or deities; it is simply a lack of belief in any of them.

It is worth noting that most of the people of the world can be regarded as a type of Atheist. Of the Gods and Goddesses who have been worshiped down through the ages — Athena, Baal, Bacchus, Bast, Brahman, Bridget, Diana, Eostre, Fergus, Freya, Horus, Isis, Marduk, Mithras, Nerrivik, Odin, Pluto, Quetzalcoatl, Ra, Shiva, Sophia, Thor, Vishnu, Vulcan, Zeus, and thousands of others, the vast majority of people believe in only a few. Most believe in a single deity — the Trinity in Christianity, Allah in Islam, Yahweh in Judaism — and thus deny the existence of the thousands of other deities. Such people can be considered Atheists towards these other Gods and Goddesses. In the same way, Roman Pagans considered Christians to be Atheists in the early years of the Church, because followers of Jesus denied the existence of all of the dozens of Roman deities.

All About Philosophy’s Atheism page says:

There are two basic forms of atheism: “strong” atheism and “weak” atheism. Strong atheism is the doctrine that there is no God or gods. Weak atheism is the disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Weak atheism is often confused with agnosticism, the lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods, and skepticism, the doctrine that the absolute knowledge of God’s existence is unobtainable by mere man. Many agnostics and skeptics are “practical atheists” in that they actively pursue an atheistic lifestyle. The exclusion of God necessitates moral relativism.

Finally, the BBC’s Religion & Ethics Page on Atheism says:

Atheists are people who believe that god or gods (or other supernatural beings) are man-made constructs, myths and legends or who believe that these concepts are not meaningful.

Now that we’ve got some “official definitions,” we’ll take a look at what atheism really means in practical terms in the next installment of this multipart exploration of atheism.

Questions? Suggestions? Opinions? Leave a comment.

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

Sex Deemed a “Fundamental of the Economy”?

(http://sass-pants.com) — Hustler bigwig Larry Flynt and Joe Francis, the brilliant (ahem) mind behind the Girls Gone Wild franchise are demanding $5B in government money to bail out the struggling adult entertainment industry. According to Flynt, XXX video sales have dropped 25%, and sex toys are gathering dust on the shelves.

Evidently the economy isn’t the only thing that can’t seem to get up in the US today.

Okay, sorry, that was bad. But seriously, did I miss something here? Sex is free. Well, it is if you’re doing it right. If you have to pay for it, you shouldn’t doing it in the first place. And last time I checked, XXX entertainment and naughty accessories weren’t required for people to enjoy sexual healing despite economic hardship. (Hard, get it? Yeah, this post will be full of them.) And, if you can’t have or enjoy sex without added stimulus from adult videos, etc, then you have far bigger problems than not being able to afford your porn habit. You know, until another stimulus check comes along.

Believe me, I am all about sex. (Though I don’t particularly recommend it while recovering from a back injury. Just saying.) And not just because it’s fun. Sex is good for you. Having healthy, regular sex can add intimacy to a committed relationship, relieve stress, improve muscle tone, boost your immune system, and even reduces the risk of some cancers. And those are just a few of the many, many benefits sex brings.

But back to the porn industry. In my seldom-humble opinion, XXX videos and kinky add-ons get in the way of sex, not supplement it. Don’t even get me started on how absurd it is to make people think they have to spend a lot of money on a lot of ridiculous crap to have a happy and healthy sex life. Your only required investments are an appropriate form of birth control and some lube if you feel so inclined. Everything else is just surplus. Like buying bottled water when you have all the free water you want right out of your faucet. Sure, it’s all fancy and trendy, but seriously, let’s get back to basics.

Would it be such a bad thing if the porn industry folded? Not that it’s in any danger of doing so, if you ask me. What do you think? Is so-called adult entertainment a help or a hindrance to good sex?

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

(image: SXC.hu)

(www.meowbarkblog.com) — I got a frantic call from my husband today while I was pulling into the chiropractor’s parking lot about 35 minutes from our house. (I need adjustments 3x/week for the next 4 weeks thanks to my recent car accident.)

“The alarm is going off at the house!”

“Well, I’m at the doctor and I won’t be home for over half an hour if leave now, so…”

“Okay, I’ll tell them to send the police.”

Dave,* who’s been living with us for a few months while waiting for his wife to get a transfer from her job 3 hours from HIS new job, beat me home and called Jesse with the news: “The dogs ate that big box of chocolate. I think it set off the alarm when they were scraping the plastic across the floor.”

Oh, great. My dogs, who just a few days earlier, downed 10 lbs of flour, just ate 2.5 lbs of chocolate. Does it get any better?

Fortunately for all of us, it wasn’t very good-quality chocolate, so the amount of cocoa consumed even if one dog had eaten the whole thing alone would have been minimal. So far, everyone seems just fine. Even Pickles, who we learned from the projectile vomiting post-flour, tends to have a more sensitive stomach than the other dogs. Awesome. What else can they POSSIBLY get into?

Contents Copyright © 2009 Kristen King

• Not his real name.

(image: SXC.hu)