Picking Up Speed on the Slippery Slope
I read a lot of political blogs, so I have never felt compelled to offer my thoughts on a number of hot topics. I know that anyone who wants to see what the reaction is to this, that or the other political outrage can find many sources elsewhere.
However, I have been stunned at the absolute silence on the subject of General Hayden's confirmation as head of the CIA, by a vote of some impossible number like 75-15. This is the very person who has overseen the NSA's lurch into warrantless surveillance despite the many easy routes for gaining warrants up to 72 hours after the wiretapping has begun; the stockpiling of data taken from billions of domestic phone calls; the person who, when asked about the 4th amendment, denied that half of it exists.
Let's couple this with the fact that this is a military man heading a civilian agency, in a country that has already gone wildly militaristic, and the picture that then emerges is hardly comforting. How are we so blase?
There is a lot of talk about freedom and liberty in my part of the country. However, the definitions attached to these terms are not those that I am familiar with. Apparently freedom means the ability to impose our military might across the globe. It does not mean reading, understanding or upholding the Bill of Rights.
Apparently there seems to be a general consensus here that the executive branch is the embodiment of our country, and the stronger the executive, the stronger the country. Additional confusion arises from our definition of strength as being he who can swagger and boast and trample over others the best. It is best if the persons being trampled are from other countries and cultures, but if a few million people in our own country get trampled also, well, that's the price we pay for freedom. And after all, if those people who are objecting didn't have anything to hide, why should they mind the government's prying?
Obviously, I find a few flaws in this reasoning. Strength is not measured by notches on your belt, but on intelligence, understanding, and the ability to collaborate with others for solutions that provide the greatest benefit to the maximum number of people. Freedom is defined by respect for individual liberties. None of us are any freer than the most vulnerable of our neighbors. If one person can be violated without repercussion or consequence, who is there to stop the next person, perhaps marginally less vulnerable, from the same kind of attack?
Which brings me back to the concept of placing a military man who apparently has never read the Bill of Rights in charge of governmental espionage. The Constitution and laws of our country are trifles to this man, easily swatted away. Congress seems to have no desire to correct this opinion. Thus, Congress continues to follow a pattern of conceding power to the executive whenever the executive chooses to make a power grab. Why Congress still supports a power-mad president, when over 70% of the country gave it up a long time ago, is something that no amount of political reading and research on both sides of the aisle will clarify for me.
Still, there are courts. Theoretically, we have one check left in our system of checks and balances, if the executive appointments to the federal courts have left anyone with a backbone in office. We know Mr. Alito believes in a dictatorial executive, but perhaps Mr. Roberts may yet come to shiver at the idea of an all-powerful unitary executive. In Marbury vs. Madison, the single greatest precedent defining the role of the courts, our first chief justice, John Marshall, ruled that the court was the final arbiter of the law, no matter what the president might think (thus nullifying 750 signing statements issued by our current president). Also, it was held that Congress may not cede its Constitutional powers to the president, nor may either the president or Congress abrogate rights and powers that belong to the people, as enumerated in the Constitution and its amendments.
It is a scary world indeed when our hope for halting the increasingly rapid encroachment of the government into our civil liberties rests with persons such as Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito (it is nightmarish just to write those words), but the world can work in mysterious ways. Let's hope at least one of these less-than-distinguished gentleman finds his way back to the Bill of Rights, and halts our rapid descent down the rabbithole.
A Song Sung in Two Parts
The hot topic at our house lately has been the difference between male and female communication styles. My husband was astounded to learn that women and men often speak a different language. Note that this is man who has a sister, a wife of 33 years standing, and three adult daughters. He and I, along with our oldest daughter and son, have spent several evenings trying to form a bridge. Fortunately, our son is equally adept at both communication styles, and has done a marvelous job as translator.
As it happened, two of the therapists (both male) at my agency went on vacation last week, and I had agreed to cover their groups Thursday night. One group consisted of 15 domestic violence offenders; the other was a group of 20 sexual offenders. Since clear communication styles were on my mind, I decided to make that the theme of the evening.
I started with a film on how girls and boys are raised differently, even in the same house. It starts day one in the nursery: research has shown that babies wrapped in blue blankets are held and spoken to differently than the babies in pink blankets. Boys are urged to "be tough" and mask emotion; girls are urged to "be nice." Teachers allow boys to interrupt with questions and comments; girls are expected to raise their hands and take turns.
However, the most profound and lasting differences are rooted in the way boys and girls are expected to play. Boys play team sports, with rigid hierarchies, defined rules, specific goals, and the expectation that play continues until someone wins and someone loses. Girls play dolls and dress up, games where the "rules" are made up as the game goes along, there are no winners and losers, and the focus is more on working out relationship issues.
As adults, these differences emerge in a host of ways. Men in the work force, for example, know who is the boss and can follow the chain of command down to its tiniest permutations. They know which of the persons serving on an executive staff are more executive than others, and who should be given preference. Thus, they know who to accept orders from, and who to command. When given direction from their boss, they move quickly to meet his or her specifications. Likewise, when they issue instructions, they expect to see them carried out efficiently and without any backchat.
Women in the work force tend to view everyone as having value in their job functions, and to assume that the work force works best when each person brings their expertise to the table and hammers out a decision based on multiple sources of input. When given instructions, they are likely to ask questions and make suggestions as to how the project can be handled most effectively. One of the largest contributing factors to the "glass ceiling" is the male interpretation of this attitude as being insubordinate, and detrimental to rapid functioning.
Communication issues affect every aspect of life. Men consider conflict a part of every day life, often enjoy it, and rarely allow it to get in the way of friendships and business relationships. After all, if you have played sports all your life, you are familiar with the concept of fighting tooth and claw until the whistle blows, and then all going out together for pizza and soda. Women generally have a horror of conflict, and will create all kinds of strategies to avoid it, even with people they would never consider friends. Indeed, I am unfailingly pleasant to women I pretty much despise, and they return both favors.
On a personal level, I believe these differences are more frustrating to men than women. Women complain that men don't communicate often enough, men think, okay, I can engage in a discussion, and pick an issue that requires a decision. Instantly the men move into debate mode, where the goal is to win at all costs. Women are not interested in conversations that necessarily produce a loser, and back away. The communication ends with everyone coming away feeling like they have lost, and the chance for real communication is missed.
Now obviously, not all men nor all women fit into these modes. Women are playing more and more competitive team sports as girls, and men are quite capable of recognizing female speech patterns and joining in.
But still, the styles hold true for large groups of men and women, and particularly resonated in my offender groups. Like my husband, only in a much more extreme fashion, they were flabbergasted at the idea that women might well resent conflicts over the color of the carpet, and hold a grudge when the man ended up bringing home blue carpet when the woman wanted green, because after all, he won the debate. Several of them were able to connect their insistence on making each issue a debate with their subsequent conviction for rape. Consent coerced after seemingly endless argument and verbal assault turns out not to be consent at all.
On a personal level, my husband tends to enter a discussion convinced that he has the better argument, and if I don't agree, it's because I don't understand it. I tell him I understand him perfectly well, and yet still maintain my own viewpoint. Since he is absolutely convinced of the merit of his position, he decides that I just think I understand, because if I REALLY understood I would come around to his way of thought. So he just keeps repeating himself over and over until I say "fine, if that's what you are going to do regardless of my opinion, go ahead." He interprets that as consent, and is stunned when I am unhappy with his ensuing course of action. After all, I did say the words "go ahead." Thus, the argument ended with my consent, the conflict was nicely resolved, and everyone should be heading out to the pizza parlor.
Understanding that there are different ways of expressing thoughts and ideas does not necessarily make communication easier. Like most women, I am quite capable of deciphering "guyspeak." After all, it tends to be very direct and didactic. I have also been completely aware of the fact that my husband has no idea of what I am trying to say, and have recognized that the difficulty arises from my inability to respond in the same language. I'm completely capable of doing this in work, where I move in and out of both languages all the time. But having been trained to communicate in a way that nurtures rather than batters relationships, I can't move out of that pattern in the most significant relationship in my life. By some perverse natural law, this backfires rather amazingly.
The greatest hope for our household is that we have two men living in our house (one being my son and the other a family friend) who are gifted in both male and female communication styles. We have been engaging them in our dialogues, and amazing progress is being made.
Perhaps our society will be transformed by other gifted persons, those girls playing soccer and basketball as passionately as do their male counterparts, and those men who care for women who have taken the time to learn "girlspeak" and to honor its intent and purpose. I think of the male therapists who work in our agency, and the men who are entering and enriching traditionally female occupations such as teaching and nursing.
It will be particularly nice when I don't need to facilitate sex offender treatment groups, because there won't be any men who don't realize that coerced agreement is no agreement at all.
