Month: July 2009

Fights you cant win redux – The Mater Complex

It’s impossible to take the moral high ground when arguing with parents. The “family” being the preeminent Australian social unit, and stay at home mothers being the ultimate in sacrificial living.

So what do you do if you think the mothers are wrong? You keep quite. Or you try to, and you write multiple blog entries along the same theme.

I love my mum. I love that she stayed home to raise me (and my sisters). I think it was hugely sacrificial of her. But I can’t imagine using a Facebook status as a form of parenting support or catharsis.

Fights you can’t win…

I’m pretty arrogant and like arguing… but I’m not afraid to put my hand up and declare my defeat (or my surrender). I think I’ve bitten off more than I can chew taking on the brotherhood of motherhood.

I’m going to cut my losses and declare myself “wrong” on this point. Go for it mothers (and fathers) – share away…

Overcaring

I’ve diagnosed the underlying symptom driving my oversharing antagonism. I don’t actually care, enough, about what’s important in the lives of those people in my Facebook friends list. And the people I do really care about I have enough contact with in real life (not necessarily physically) that I am across their milestones and moments of significance.

This is possibly a failing of mine. And it’s probably, as I suggested in my last comment in that other thread it comes down to a different understanding to the purpose of Facebook (and any social networking). It’s probably my inner pragmatic arrogant male self asserting itself.

I’m still anti-oversharing, but I think I assume everyone sees Facebook as I do – a contact book for casual acquaintances mixed with genuine deep relationships.

If you’ve only got Facebook friends who you are in deep relationship with – then by all means, overshare. Just make sure your privacy settings aren’t publishing your thoughts to the world.

I don’t go to Facebook to maintain deep relationships, there are far better ways to do that. I go there to keep in touch with people, to advertise events, to plug my blog and to organise social activities.

Simone has written a defence of motherly oversharing that closely mirrors Stuss’s. Two great mothers can’t be wrong. My argument is now that they are using the wrong forum to share motherly insights and milestones.

My comment that other workers don’t get to write in depth about their jobs (in most cases) still stands. The fact that it is your job does not make it legitimate sharing fodder.

If you think I am in the circle of friends you’d like to share your intimate, innermost feelings and joys with – then by all means keep sharing. But don’t force that on me (or others).

A bunch of links – July 23, 2009

Change in the air

I’m gradually making the switch between this geographically and personally specific domain name – and my new, as voted by you, domain – st-eutychus.

All the links and stuff on the page will now direct to “st-eutychus” links.

Eutychus was the young man who fell asleep, and out a window to his death, during a sermon by Paul. Paul felt so guilty that he resurrected him.

The current domain expires in December, and will work up until then. I’ll change the name of the blog when I have a new design ready to go.

Exciting times.

Christian Socialism

Christian socialism is all the rage. Bonhoeffer is the new black – cited by everyone from K-Rudd to Greens candidates… to Terry Eagleton. Terry Eagleton is the guy who wrote “that review” of the God Delusion – that took Dawkins and co for task for failing to understand theology when dismissing Christianity. He says they’re dismissing a caricature – they say the caricature is ok because they’re rejecting the fundamental premise that faith is based on.

This has caused a bit of a philosophical stink amongst friends in Britain’s intellectual circles. Eagleton is a Marxist with a Catholic background. He used to be a drinking buddy of Christopher Hitchens (another angry atheist). He’s got more in common with the writer of this interesting little interview from the New Humanist than he has differences. It’s worth a read. If only for these two quotes:

“Listen. If Dawkins has emancipated people, freed them from the religious closet as it were, then all credit to him. Loath as I might be to compare Dawkins to Jesus Christ, in this he resembles the heroic figure in the New Testament who comes to sweep away all the fetishism and sickness and cynicism of the neurotic religionists.”

In a sense, Dawkins is the opiate for the religious masses…

You want to save Christianity from the Christians?

“Yes, I quote my father who insisted that Jesus Christ was a socialist and that any Christianity that is not on the side of the dispossessed against the arrogance of the powerful and rich is utterly untraditional. Dawkins and Hitchens write about Christianity and never link the words God, justice and love. That is either a sign of their obtuseness or a sign of the massive self-betrayal of the Christian movement. It has got to the point where intelligent people like them don’t understand that Christianity is not about how many months you get in purgatory for adultery. It’s about a love and a thirst for justice that will bring you to your death. There’s nothing lovely about it.”

So, was Jesus a Marxist? Has the church got it so badly wrong that people need rescuing at the hands of someone like Dawkins?

I think Eagleton’s definition of Christianity is skewed – but it’s probably a useful thought for pulling people away from bible belt conservatism.

One of the central tenants of humanism is that humanity can basically “save itself” – that left to our own devices, and without nasty people causing trouble, humanity will move in a positive trajectory.

A bunch of links – July 22, 2009

  • Giant database of English medieval soldiers online
    For anybody remotely interested in medieval times this is amazing…br”The detailed service records of 250,000 medieval soldiers – including archers who served with Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt – have gone online. brThe database of those who fought in the Hundred Years War reveals salaries, sickness records and who was knighted. brbrThe full profiles of soldiers from 1369 to 1453 will allow researchers to piece together details of their lives.”
  • Tahu quits Tahs, returns to NRL
  • Google Wave Opens To Non-Developers In September
  • Binge and Purge
    Ben takes a stand: “As of this day, I am going to begin a 30 day vow of abstinence from all manner of typed faces. Sort of like a bloggers’ detox. Anyone with me? You won’t regret it. You even have my blessing to use the comments page of this post as a last binge. I’ll go first. Look away. “
  • status abuse
  • The Socratic Method, Part 1

Go with the flow

Another useful flow chart (from here)…

Sadly, I realise that today is Wednesday, which means I missed my YouTube Tuesday post for this week. Thanks to the magic of wordpress it will appear in the past when I find a video worth posting.

Oversharing: If you can’t beat them…

Clearly I offended people by suggesting some details about your life (particularly gory parenting details) should be kept private and not trumpeted to the world via Facebook.

I am sorry.

There must be more to this oversharing thing than meets the eye… I thought. So, being the student of Gonzo Journalism that I am, I became part of the story, and investigated…

Here are my status updates from today – and the comments they generated…

I gave up after a while. I couldn’t handle the heat.

Moral Dilemma: What constitutes fast food

Readers who’ve been around for more than a couple of weeks will know that I swore off Fast Food as a new financial year resolution.

This presents me with an interesting dilemma. For years I have had a not so secret fixation with Nandos. Their Peri Peri spice is delicious.

Sadly, it has been an unrequited affair of the palate – there has not been a Nandos in Townsville. Until now. It opened pretty soon after I took my vow to forswear “fast food” – by which I meant the major chains – Maccas, KFC, Hungry Jacks and Red Rooster.

And so it comes to pass… I must decide whether Nandos is fast food, in the sense ruled out by the spirit of my self imposed ban.

What say you noble readers?

Horseplay: with wheels

Ralph Lauren polo shirts are one of those status symbols favoured by the rich and the famous. There’s a rule of thumb that says that the bigger the horse on the shirt the more the wearer is trying to draw attention to their awesomeness (ie the bigger the tool)

Segways are another such status symbol and Polo, the sport, is the last piece of this picture…

This is Apple co-founder “The Woz” playing Segway Polo.

I suggest the Ralph Lauren Polos of the future will feature a logo like this… you heard it here first.

Knowing the creators

Ben was a little bit upset that he didn’t make it into the creator category of my post about types of bloggers. He’s lifted his game since. His bed face post was exceptional – a blend of creativity and his inimitable style of biting social observation.

Check out the bed head indicators… and read the post. Gold.

A bunch of links – July 21, 2009

Status symbols

You know what bothers me about Facebook… some people have annoying statuses. PC World has put together a list of common status update themes.

“English professors claim that there are relatively few distinct story plots, and that every piece of literature is just a retelling of one of those narrative archetypes. I’m convinced that the same is true of the things people write in their Facebook status updates.”

The list captures most of them – including my personal unfavourite – “Too much information” update. This is generally perpetrated by parents (or parents to be). Sorry parents. It’s true. People who aren’t parents (not just married people who aren’t parents…) don’t want to hear about

a) the pain involved in child birth

b) the funny thing your child did the point I was trying to make here is probably better summed up by the rest of the points. I’m fine with amusing stories, just not with the expectation that we love your child as much as you do, and not with funny stories pertaining to items covered by points c) and d).

c) Breastfeeding, toilet training, any other milestones…

d) Your child’s bodily functions

e) Your child related bodily functions

f) Running commentaries on your pregnancy

My other unfavourite is the “Christian” update – the bible verse etc – if it annoys me, and I’m a bona fide bible bashing Christian – imagine what it’s doing to your non-Christian friends. It’s not a witness to anything but your own sense of personal holiness.

Me, I prefer writing boring updates about the cricket or coffee, interspersed with occasional bursts of what I think is wit or insight.

That is all.

On Swearing

I don’t often swear, nor am I offended by it. Simone’s latest post has some choice words in it (choice not in the New Zealand sense but in the “offensive to people who don’t like swearing” sense).
She speculatively mused on Twitter that this might offend some people. It probably will. And using such language will always do so. My thoughts on swearing are probably best expressed in list form…

  1. Swearing is not always “unwholesome talk”
    Language changes with time. “Bugger” would have been incredibly offensive 50 years ago, it’s not now. But saying inappropriate things about one’s mother will always be “unwholesome”. Language moves and evolves. It’s stupid to have hang ups about particular words.
  2. Swearing is about intention, not about content
    One thing I’ve never really understood is people who take a moral stand against swearing but use a substitue word like “sugar”. The intention is exactly the same. Who cares if one word means faeces and the other is a product of refined cane – swearing is about intent. You’re just as guilty either way, you may as well not look like a self righteous prude while being guilty.
  3. Swearing is usually grammatically and contextually innappropriate
    Honestly, the words that we most commonly “swear by” are pretty lame and can only be applied appropriately in limited circumstances – they describe body parts, bodily functions, excrement, and the act of procreation – there are only limited circumstances where these words can be used appropriately. There is an interesting, but highly offensive, documentary cartoon floating around detailing the myriad uses of the “f” word – that show that its definition has been allowed to creep too far. I’m all for swearing – provided the usage is justified both situationally (for shock value/catharsis) and the word usage is correct
  4. Swearing for the purpose of offense is wrong
  5. Swearing for the purpose of expression is lazy
    There are better words available. Use them.
  6. Swearing in the presence of those offended by swearing is wrong
    For Christians swearing is a food sacrificed to idols deal – it’s not wrong in and of itself but it’s wrong because people think it’s wrong