Archive for February, 2008

On “engendering” change

J.K. Gayle has a fine post up summarizing the history of women who have run for office. I knew all but one of the names; I learned today for the first time of Frances Farenthold. Good stuff. Also, see Reclusive Leftist for an excellent take on the “unconscious bias” that favors Obama over Clinton.

At Feministe, and at Elaine’s place, discussion has broken out over the question of how a married woman can best introduce her well-meaning but at times infuriatingly sexist husband to the basic insights of feminism. (The conversation is broad enough that it need not be limited to those who are married, and indeed, another thread has started about how to raise very young feminist daughters.) Despite some attempts at hijacking by the usual trolls, the discussion has been excellent; do check out Elaine’s post and the Feministe threads.

The last time I got involved in a discussion like this in the blogosphere, I said something idiotically pompous (perhaps at Punkass Blog, perhaps at Violet Socks) about being a “professional” who “did feminism for a living.” It was one of my many low points on the internets, and I do repent of it. The fact that I am paid to teach gender studies courses means that I am privileged enough to earn money for doing justice work, but it hardly makes me either wiser or more personally invested in the cause than other activists. But what all of these years and years of teaching feminism to often suspicious audiences has taught me is that there are indeed a few effective ways to “reach” the well-intentioned but misguided. Continue reading ‘On “engendering” change’

Thursday Short Poem: Murray’s “Eucalypts in Exile”

This appears in the March issue of First Things. Les Murray writes about a tree we Californians know all too well, and of which I have never been fond. Our ranch road is lined by eucalyptus, a non-native tree with an extraordinary ability to adapt, to conquer, and to crowd out native species. It’s a splendid tribute to these stout invaders, and as anyone who has watched what they can do to other plants knows, they are indeed “merciless in a gang.”

Eucalypts in Exile

They’ve had so many jobs:
boiling African porridge. Being printed on.
Paving Paris, flying in her revolutions.
Supporting a stork’s nest in Spain.

Their suits are neater abroad,
of denser drape, unnibbled:
they’ve left their parasites at home.

They flower out of bullets
and, without any taproot,
draw water from way deep.
When they blow over
they reveal the black sun of that trick.
Standing round among shed limbs
and loose slabbings of bark
is homeland stuff
but fire is ingrained.
They explode the mansions of Malibu
because to be eucalypts
they have to shower sometime in Hell.
Their humans, meeting them abroad,
often grab and sniff their hands.
Loveable singly or unmarshalled
they are merciless in a gang.

Stuff White People Like

I’m late to the party, but count me as a big fan of “Stuff White People Like.” Check it out for yourself; the entries on dogs, divorce, veganism, and marathons are spot on.

In a not-entirely dissimilar vein, here’s my old Happy WASP boy post.

“Not a Presby, nor a Luth’ran” — an old Episcopal youth camp song

On an entirely different note, this song came into my head today. My mother sang it to me when I was a child. She learned it from her roommate at Vassar in the mid-1950s; her roommate had sung it at an Episcopalian youth camp. I’ve sung it myself for many of my Episcopalian friends (including priests and the current bishop of Los Angeles), and to my amazement, none of them know it. So here it is, and it is to be sung to the tune of “God Bless America”:

I am an Anglican,
I am C.E.:
Neither high church
Nor low church,
I am Protestant and Catholic and Free!

Not a Presby,
Nor a Luth’ran
Nor a Baptist, white with foam;
I am an Anglican –
Just one step from Rome!
I am an Anglican —
Just one step from Rome!

Whether it’s theologically true any longer is debatable, but the bit about the Baptist is pretty darned good.

A few notes on feminism, symbols, and youthful Obamophilia

The powerful attraction that the young have to Barack Obama has been much discussed, and lately, I’ve been trying to tease out some of the thinking that underlies the devotion to the junior senator from Illinois. In the past two weeks, I’ve met with a few students and some of my old youth group kids. In my office and at Starbucks, the conversation has invariably turned to politics; virtually to a man and woman, these young folks are Obama supporters.

I’ve been asking the same single question lately: “From your perspective, whose election — Clinton’s or Obama’s — would be more likely to send the message that anyone really can grow up to be president?”

My survey is not scientific. But virtually all of the young (and by young, I mean under 25) folks I’ve chatted with lately have answered “Obama”. It isn’t just the case that race trumps gender, even though more than half of the people I’ve chatted with are young women. It’s that to those too young to remember the first space shuttle explosion, Obama’s “narrative” seems more emblematic of American possibility than does Clinton’s. On Monday, I met with an eighteen year-old former youth-grouper of mine who just voted for Obama in the primary. This young white female said she had initially liked Ron Paul until she found out he was pro-life; a registered independent with liberal/libertarian leanings, she had become increasingly captivated by Barack. And though she might consider voting for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she’s thoroughly in the Obama camp for now. And yes, without prompting, she made the same remark that everyone else seems to be making: “If Obama can be president, then anyone can be president.”

Honestly, these conversations have made me feel old. Perhaps I’m still very much in the mindsight of second-wave feminism, even though I’m too young to remember that movement at its zenith. For me, in the end, nothing could be more revolutionary than electing a woman to the most powerful office in the country (and presumably, on earth). Hillary Clinton’s life narrative may not be as inspiring as Barack Obama’s, but when I look at Hillary (twenty years my senior), I see a familiar sort of figure: a woman who has spent her life working twice as hard to get half the credit she would receive were she a man. And though my affection for her is not rooted in her sex alone, I’m struck — as so many older feminists are struck — by the willingness of the young to see gender as entirely irrelevant.

My mother told me, when I was very young, that someday we would see a woman president. Like many of my generation and hers, I’ve believed that the moment we elect a woman as “leader of the free world” (a wince-inducing phrase, but there it is), we will have at last crossed the Rubicon of progress. In a world where women have, for so very long, been denied their full humanity, no single marker of change could be greater than to choose someone with ovaries and put her in the White House.* The USA is not the UK, or Israel, or India, or Argentina (all countries which have had women as heads of government). To the degree that I still buy into the seductive notion of American exceptionalism, I believe that there would be something uniquely revolutionary about choosing a woman as commander in chief.

As a child of five, I accompanied my mother to rallies for the late Shirley Chisholm, who ran for president in 1972. As a young man of 20, I wrote my first-ever political check to Pat Schroeder, the Colorado congresswoman who explored a run for the Democratic nomination in 1988. I’ve been waiting a long time, and others have been waiting much longer.

The young, it seems, are so confident that a woman will “someday” be president that they feel no sense of urgency to help “someday” be now. Whether or not that’s prorgress, I really don’t know.

* This is a feeling, folks, not necessarily a fact.

“I’m not like the others”: Nice Guys, self-flattery, and the myth of uniqueness

Following up on yesterday’s post on teenage boys and love, Amy comments below my post:

Guys who accepted the “emotional aspects of their identity” also often still accepted the myth that most guys only want sex and nothing else. As a result, they’d believe they were special and uniquely able to be the emotional guy that they were taught every girl wanted. They saw it as their advantage in the dating scene.

Is this where we ask for the show of hands? How many lads have ever said to a woman in whom they were interested, “You know, I’m really not like other guys”? How many women have had that line laid on them a time or ten?

Amy’s on to something important. The SUNY Oswego study makes clear that most adolescent males aren’t nearly as sex-crazed as we popularly imagine. The study provides welcome reinforcement to the notion that boys as well as girls are interested in love, romance, and relationship. But of course, the conclusion is counter to what our culture teaches us about masculinity. And among the many victims of the discourse about what a man is — and isn’t — are boys themselves.

It is axiomatic that in American adolescent culture, it is dangerous for boys to be too open about their feelings and emotions. The fear of being labelled a “faggot” or a “pussy” is as prevalent for today’s young men as it was in their fathers’ and grandfathers’ generation. (A point ably demonstrated by C.J. Pascoe in her magisterial “Dude, You’re a Fag”.) As a consequence, those boys who don’t feel as if they live up to (or down to) the masculine stereotype may well begin to imagine that they are unique. Continue reading ‘“I’m not like the others”: Nice Guys, self-flattery, and the myth of uniqueness’

Almanzo Wilder

My cousin, Dean Butler, who played Almanzo Wilder on Little House on the Prairie, has a preview of his documentary about the husband of Laura Ingalls.

Dean’s Youtube site is here, and his blog is here.

And the Almanzo-Laura romance is nicely edited together here.

Ms. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action

The spring issue of Ms. Magazine will soon be available. One highlight of the upcoming issue will be a detailed and searing expose of Ward Connerly, the infamous anti-affirmative action crusader.

I haven’t blogged much about affirmative action here, though I have long supported it in both principle and action. In 1996, when Connerly succeeded in getting Proposition 209 on the California ballot, I was on the steering committee of the college’s campaign against the initiative. 209, which ended up passing by a fairly wide margin, struck a serious blow to outreach efforts across the Golden State. (Famously, the percentage of black and Latino students at UCLA and at Cal plummeted). Connerly repeated his California success in Michigan a decade later, with the “Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.”

The Ms. expose focuses on several aspects of Connerly’s career and mission. For one thing, his anti-affirmative action work has made him a very rich man; Ms. reports that Connerly receives well over $1.6 million per year from the non-profit anti-affirmative action charities he controls. (Most of the funding comes from the construction industry, which profits enormously when Connerly’s propositions ban the “minority set-asides” that level the playing field in bidding for government contracts.) As Connerly (who is, of course, partly of African-American ancestry) continues his fight against affirmative action, he makes a very nice living.

The damage done to women (both white and non-white) by Connerly’s movement is deftly explored in the new Ms. Continue reading ‘Ms. on Ward Connerly and affirmative action’

Guys in love: celebrating the new SUNY Oswego study on teenage boys and relationships

Reader “English Rosebud” sent me a link this weekend to this story that ran in the New York Times on Friday: Inside the Mind of the Boy Dating Your Daughter. As she mentions in her email, it’s a powerful corrective to the widespread notion that teenage boys have just one thing on their mind.

The stereotype of the 16-year-old boy is that he has sex on the brain. But a fascinating new report suggests that boys are motivated more by love and a desire to form real relationships with the girls they date.

Based on a study that appears in this month’s Journal of Adolescence, the researchers (from SUNY Oswego) concluded:

Among the boys who had been sexually active, physical desire and wanting to know what sex feels like were among the top three reasons they pursued sex. However, the boys were equally likely to say they pursued sex because they loved their partner. Interestingly, only 14 percent said they sought sex because they wanted to lose their virginity, and 9 percent did so to fit in with friends.

The researchers note that there is no way to assess the truthfulness of the boys’ answers, but the rate of sexual activity in the sample is consistent with national trends, suggesting the boys were answering honestly. The survey group was ethnically and economically diverse, and 95 indicated they were heterosexual, while 10 boys didn’t answer the question.

Bold emphasis mine.

The overall findings are contrary to cultural beliefs that boys are interested primarily in sex and not relationships.

“Let’s give boys more credit,’’ said study author Andrew Smiler, an assistant professor of psychology at the university. “Although some of them are just looking for sex, most boys are looking for a relationship. The kids we know mostly aren’t like this horrible stereotype. They are generally interested in dating and getting to know their partners.’’

(I wish Professor Smiler hadn’t used the phrase “horrible stereotype”. I wince at the implication that wanting sex for pleasure is “horrible”. After all, both men and women do sometimes pursue sex outside of the context of an enduring relationship. While dishonesty and manipulation are indeed “horrible”, the pursuit of pleasure for its own sake need not be accompanied by deceit or abuse. It’s “slut-shaming” at its most tiresome to suggest otherwise.)

Still, I’m delighted with this study, and not at all surprised. I’ve worked with adolescent boys as a youth minister for many years, and I’ve taught slightly older young men for even longer. One of the most common complaints that I — and anyone else who works with teen boys — hear is “I’m tired of having everyone think all I care about is sex”. Like the boys in the SUNY study, the teens I work with don’t deny that they are sexual creatures; they don’t pretend that sex isn’t frequently on their minds. What they find more frustrating than unsatisfied horniness is the enduring stereotype that they have no real interest in love and romance. When speaking of teens of either sex, it’s a false dichotomy to suggest that they want either sex or a relationship. All the recent research suggests that adolescent girls can have powerful libidos; this study makes clear what youth workers already know: that teenage boys, as horny as they are, have deep and complex emotional desires. Continue reading ‘Guys in love: celebrating the new SUNY Oswego study on teenage boys and relationships’

Women’s Studies: not dead yet, thanks

A reader named Fred kindly sends me a link to this Times Online story that ran a couple of weeks ago: Last women standing. According to Esther Oxford (love the name), Women’s Studies as a discipline is on the decline in the United Kingdom:

…the UK’s last stand-alone undergraduate degree in women’s studies, London Metropolitan used to have places for 35 undergraduates on the course. But in 2005, it stopped accepting new students.

It is all a far cry from the heyday for women’s studies in the late Eighties and early Nineties. In the past two decades, departments across Britain have been forced to integrate into other departments or to close outright. Only MAs and PhDs appear to be surviving the cull.

One problem has been the sustained attack on women’s studies as a “soft” subject appealing to fringe elements and perpetuating old-fashioned, irrelevant debates. Women and society have moved on, say critics, but women’s studies remains framed by the politics of a particular time, namely the feminist movement of the Seventies.

To be accurate, as the article makes clear, many Women’s Studies programs in Britain (as here in the United States) aren’t disappearing entirely. Instead, they are being folded into the larger discipline of Gender Studies. For example, here in Los Angeles, we see that the number of doctoral programs in Women’s Studies has been halved in the past few years. UCLA still has a Women’s Studies program, while arch-rival USC has a Gender Studies program — which grew out of an older Women’s Studies major. (Both are first rate.) It would be dishonest, however, to suggest that because there are fewer programs using the term “women’s studies” that the subject is on the decline. At some institutions, name changes reflect that the study of sex and society has been broadened and deepened rather than reduced,

(Parenthetically, I note that while I was an undergraduate, the “meteorology” major disappeared and was replaced by “Atmospheric Sciences”. It would have been silly to conclude that folks lost interest in studying weather simply because the nomenclature was altered!) Continue reading ‘Women’s Studies: not dead yet, thanks’

Friday Random Ten: wear your Lenten discipline lightly edition

Lots of old favorites here; Mary Gauthier and Oh Susanna are two artists I’ve been listening to a lot lately, and they’re the only ones making a FRT debut.

1. “You’re Gonna Make Me Lonesome”, Bob Dylan
2. “Mercy Now”, Mary Gauthier
3. “John Henry”, Bruce Springsteen
4. “Tears of God”, Los Lobos
5. “I’m on My Way”, The Proclaimers
6. “Pretty Face”, Oh Susanna
7. “A Little More”, Jennifer Knapp
8. “Swallow”, Wailin’ Jennys
9. “Don’t Tear Me Up”, Mick Jagger
10. “No One Like You”, Scorpions

Bonus Track One: “One Part Be My Lover”, Bonnie Raitt
Bonus Track Two: “Gleams of that Golden Morning”, Forbes Family

February 14 memories…

My wife and I will have a quiet Valentine’s evening in tonight; it’s our sixth as a couple and our third as husband and wife. Local restaurants that are normally accomodating to vegans are notably less so on big holidays like tonight’s; we’re better off curling up at home.

This afternoon it hit me with a shock that at forty, I have so few memories of being single on Valentine’s Day. This is the twenty-fourth Valentine’s Day that’s come around since I was seventeen and in my first romantic relationship — and I’ve been married or otherwise seriously partnered for twenty-one of them. By my reckoning, I spent Valentine’s Day alone in 1987, 1993, and 1998, and was with a partner of one kind or another for all the others. In ‘87, I went hiking with single friends on the Marin Headlands; in ‘93 I spent hours and hours exercising in the gym; in ‘98, I worked on my dissertation and drank too much.

Oddly, I have a hard time remembering what I did with ex-wives or lovers on Valentine’s days past. Restaurants and florists all blur together after a while! What comes to my mind tonight, as I wait for my wife to get home from work, are the last five February 14ths we’ve spent together. (We were in Paris last year, and it’ll be hard to top that again.)

But I also remember that hike in 1987. We were a mixed group of boys and girls, all frosh or sophomores at Cal; we were all single and to varying degrees, unhappy about it. We spent the day on BART and on buses, hiking and laughing and singing the Cal fight song from a bluff overlooking the San Francisco Bay. We bought wine with a fake ID on the way home, and walked back to our co-ops and apartments arm-in-arm, locked together in that sweet sentimental solidarity of singleness and late adolescence, none of us wanting to let go…

Next to these past five years, it’s my favorite Valentine’s memory.

The Fifth Circuit gets in the Valentine’s Day mood: UPDATED

With exquisite timing, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the infamous Texas law banning the sale of vibrators and other “sex toys”.

In its decision Tuesday, the appeals court cited Lawrence and Garner v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 opinion that struck down bans on consensual sex between same-sex couples.

“Just as in Lawrence, the state here wants to use its laws to enforce a public moral code by restricting private intimate conduct,” the appeals judges wrote. “The case is not about public sex. It is not about controlling commerce in sex. It is about controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes because the state is morally opposed to a certain type of consensual private intimate conduct. This is an insufficient justification after Lawrence.”

The Texas attorney general’s office, which represented the Travis County district attorney in the case, has not decided whether to appeal, said agency spokesman Tom Kelley.

One almost wants the Texans to appeal, in which case we can watch the hard-core federalists on the Supreme Court (Scalia and company) defend the right of a state to ban sex toys.

I don’t make these recommendations often, but in the spirit of the day, let me suggest that if you’re interested in buying some fun toys for you, your partner, or anyone else, you spend your dollars on a company that gives back to the community. Happily, there are many women-owned companies with strong feminist leanings, but let me recommend just two (not necessarily
work-safe):

Smitten Kitten

Good Vibrations

I’m familiar with the latter company; back in the 1980s, long before the internet, they had a thriving mail-order business. They also had a few folks affiliated with their San Francisco-based store who did some educational work in the community. When I was a “Peer Sexuality Outreach” coordinator at Cal in around 1986, we had a woman come in from Good Vibrations to talk to dorm residents about sex toys. She gave a famous primer on quiet vibrators (and other techniques) that could be used while one’s roommates were sleeping, and she left even those of us who thought ourselves to be oh-so sophisticated slack-jawed and blushing.

From Midland to Marshall, Cactus to Corpus Christi, let there be rejoicing in the Lone Star state. And a run on AA and AAA batteries.

UPDATED: There’s a popular perception that sex toys are incompatible with Christian marriage. If you want to buy your “marital aids” from an evangelical-owned and operated company, check out the good people at Book22. There’s also a Book22 blog. Here’s an excerpt from the blog that gives a hint as to the “unique mission” they perform:

A couple waits to be intimate until after they are married as part of God’s plan. They find out that they are physically incompatible with the husband having a smaller than average genital size. There is frustration and confusion and even a sense of desperation of how to make the most of the situation. We get the anonymous email asking if there is any products out there that can help increase the wife’s feeling during intercourse.

I do not know many (any?) men who would be comfortable sharing this information with someone face to face let alone someone they know. So it has worked well that they can write us and ask for direction since they do not know us and will never have to meet us face to face- it is completely anonymous and I think that is why it is working so well.

In case you are reading this post and are wondering if there is help for this type of issue- there is! Please just write us and we would be happy to offer some suggestions that have worked for other customers.

Bless their hearts. Though my theology of sex is considerably more liberal than that espoused by the operators of Book22, I honor their outreach to a community traditionally wary of the erotic industry. At Book22, they make the case that though genital intimacy ought to be confined to marriage, pleasure is part and parcel of God’s design. And they acknowledge the obvious, which is that sometimes, achieving maximum pleasure requires both knowledge and a wee bit of mechanical assistance.

Thursday Short Poem: Berry’s “Country of Marriage”

I put this poem up in September 2005, just days before my wife and I were wed. I put it up again on this Valentine’s Day, as it remains one of my very favorite poems written about this challenging, glorious, blessed state in which we find ourselves.

The Country of Marriage

I.

I dream of you walking at night along the streams
of the country of my birth, warm blooms and the nightsongs
of birds opening around you as you walk.
You are holding in your body the dark seed of my sleep.

II.

This comes after silence. Was it something I said
that bound me to you, some mere promise
or, worse, the fear of loneliness and death?
A man lost in the woods in the dark, I stood
still and said nothing. And then there rose in me,
like the earth’s empowering brew rising
in root and branch, the words of a dream of you
I did not know I had dreamed. I was a wanderer
who feels the solace of his native land
under his feet again and moving in his blood.
I went on, blind and faithful. Where I stepped
my track was there to steady me. It was no abyss
that lay before me, but only the level ground.

III.

Sometimes our life reminds me
of a forest in which there is a graceful clearing
and in that opening a house,
an orchard and garden,
comfortable shades, and flowers
red and yellow in the sun, a pattern
made in the light for the light to return to.
The forest is mostly dark, its ways
to be made anew day after day, the dark
richer than the light and more blessed,
provided we stay brave
enough to keep on going in.

IV.

How many times have I come to you out of my head
with joy, if ever a man was,
for to approach you I have given up the light
and all directions. I come to you
lost, wholly trusting as a man who goes
into the forest unarmed. It is as though I descend
slowly earthward out of the air. I rest in peace
in you, when I arrive at last.

V.

Our bond is no little economy based on the exchange
of my love and work for yours, so much for so much
of an expendable fund. We don’t know what its limits are–
that puts us in the dark. We are more together
than we know, how else could we keep on discovering
we are more together than we thought?
You are the known way leading always to the unknown,
and you are the known place to which the unknown is always
leading me back. More blessed in you than I know,
I possess nothing worthy to give you, nothing
not belittled by my saying that I possess it.
Even an hour of love is a moral predicament, a blessing
a man may be hard up to be worthy of. He can only
accept it, as a plant accepts from all the bounty of the light
enough to live, and then accepts the dark,
passing unencumbered back to the earth, as I
have fallen tine and again from the great strength
of my desire, helpless, into your arms.

VI.

What I am learning to give you is my death
to set you free of me, and me from myself
into the dark and the new light. Like the water
of a deep stream, love is always too much. We
did not make it. Though we drink till we burst
we cannot have it all, or want it all.
In its abundance it survives our thirst.
In the evening we come down to the shore
to drink our fill, and sleep, while it
flows through the regions of the dark.
It does not hold us, except we keep returning
to its rich waters thirsty. We enter,
willing to die, into the commonwealth of its joy.

VII.

I give you what is unbounded, passing from dark to dark,
containing darkness: a night of rain, an early morning.
I give you the life I have let live for the love of you:
a clump of orange-blooming weeds beside the road,
the young orchard waiting in the snow, our own life
that we have planted in the ground, as I
have planted mine in you. I give you my love for all
beautiful and honest women that you gather to yourself
again and again, and satisfy–and this poem,
no more mine than any man’s who has loved a woman.

It’s very fine.  And I love this bit:

You are the known way leading always to the unknown,
and you are the known place to which the unknown is always
leading me back. More blessed in you than I know,
I possess nothing worthy to give you, nothing
not belittled by my saying that I possess it.

Lifting the cloud of self-involvement: on Lent 2008

It’s Lent. This will be the earliest Easter of my lifetime (March 23), and indeed the earliest Easter since 1913; we’re already a week into the Christian season of discipline and reflection.

My sacrifice “for me” this Lent is the usual one: no desserts or sweets (other than plain fruit) until after sundown Easter Eve. That’s easy enough for me to do; I oscillate easily between indulgence and self-denial. Of course, as Christians, our sacrifices ought to be more than simple acts of restriction that primarily benefit ourselves. (No one around me is helped in any notable way by my temporary abstinence from sugar.) And though in the past I’ve made commitments to do more volunteering or give more money, I wanted to do something different for Lent 2008.

On our recent South America trip, I spent a bit of time thinking about what it was I wanted my “extra Lenten discipline” to be. Read more Scripture? Attempt — for the 937th time — to integrate meditation into my morning rituals? Those all seemed too familiar, too tried (though no less true for having been tried). As it turned out, I got my inspiration for what to do from one of the many novels we brought along for our three week journey. (I find that I do most of my reading when I’m away from my normal routines; during the regular semester, there’s never much time for pleasure reading.) I can’t remember which novel it was (though it might have been something by Nadine Gordimer), but the chief character in the book was a middle-aged woman who felt keenly the pain of “becoming invisible.”

Last August, I wrote a little bit about the “slide into invisibility“. But as I read my book, it struck me that one of my most glaring character defects is that I really don’t “see” the people around me as well as I should. This isn’t about a failure to see older women as sexual creatures (which was the point made in the book); it’s bigger and broader than that. What I realize is that all too often, my own self-absorption keeps me from really connecting with most people as they really are. As I sat on the plane from Santiago to Ushuaia, I thought of how many people I talk to, speak with, write to every day. And it hit me, as it hasn’t hit me in a very long time, how poor a job I often do of truly “seeing” them. Continue reading ‘Lifting the cloud of self-involvement: on Lent 2008′